I am an avid fan of Wikipedia, and will frequently include links to Wikipedia entries for readers interested in additional info. The dynamic nature of the content (frequently and rapidly updated), as well as Wikipedia's accessibility (web-based) and usability (clean interface without advertisements or embedded tracking software) all appeal to me. In addition, I believe the crowdsourcing aspect, which relies on multiple content authors with potentially different perspectives, generally results in relatively balanced content.
Unfortunately, the nature of Wikipedia makes it susceptible to vandalism and content authors intent on promoting a personal or corporate agenda. As a result the primary complaint often seems to be Wikipedia's reliability. However, a 2005 study by the publication Nature indicated that Wikipedia scientific entries had a higher, but generally similar rate of "serious errors" as Encyclopaedia Britannica. I might even suggest that at least some of those inaccuracies are easy to spot because individuals promoting a specific agenda often do so with limited use of subtlety. While Wikipedia may not be the definitive source of knowledge, it is, in my opinion, often a good place to start.
