Real information?

When I am looking for some info or interested in a particular subject I need to research, I usually use Wikipedia like the fisherman uses the sonar scope. It gives me an idea where and when and who and what. Then the "real" fishing starts. I never rely on their info. The information you might find there is unreliable.
Armed with the foreknowledge of the four "W", I cast my nets and check the sources of the information. Usually university and research organizations, as well as professional organizations' sites, have an investment in being accurate. There is where I find the material I may use for my purposes with certain confidence.
But that isn't all. You need to check also the information provided by those who critique the particular source you found and weight the arguments before compromising yourself with a given version of an event or factual observation. Like becoming a jury trying to assess the arguments from the prosecution and defense teams in order of to arrive to a meaningful conclusion.
I agree that many people have no time available for this kind of approach, therefore their reliance on Wikipedia is fraught with risks of being led wrong.
People who disparage about the accuracy of Wikipedia should know that inaccurate posts usually don't last out a cycle before being excised for good. See, the people who volunteer editing Wiki have means to know what was added or modified and they go the rounds checking, so, after all, there is some kind of peer review. We can find many among those editors who have real credentials in science, etc., and they donate their time to "clean" out the misinformation. On the other hand, we might chance to come across some "info" which haven't been weeded out yet; there is no way to know for sure. That's why I say that to use Wikipedia and the related sites is only good for getting directions toward the "real" information. Of course, once in a while you cross path with the tricksters who love to send you into wild chases... Just have a laugh and start over again.
By the way again, Google scholar does its own tricks, as taking you first to the sites with the most hits regardless of the quality of the information. ... (sigh) ... Probably it would be useful to have an independent body checking for accuracy and rating it for the folks to know what to expect... but... who would finance it? Even governments would be suspect regarding such ratings... and you and I would have enough good reasons to suspect bias...