His rule of thumb is "If it isn't a major article there's probably errors". His favorite example is that of an article about an ancient persian poet, which says that there's only 2 of his poems known, and only 1 remains. Next to that line, there's a picture of the other poem.
Eh, who knows.
On the other hand, everything about currently living people, or worse, companies, you can essentially dismiss out of hand.
* Please don't. I'm just making a point.
Same here. I usually just link the Wikipedia article because it's either totally accurate or accurate enough for what I'm trying to accomplish. I added a bunch of stuff to it as a result from my domain. I do spot marketing BS on occasion in there but the baseline makes it really stand out. Most people doing IT work are going to say, "Wait, that looks like a fan or advertiser wrote it" then dismiss that specific point.
...and if it is a major article, there are definitely errors, some likely introduced on purpose[1] (since major articles are the juiciest targets)
Minor nitpick, vetting is someone checking something and approving it, whereas whetting is grinding away metal to sharpen a blade.
I am curious about something else.
Do you have non anecdotal information about Wikipedia's general dependability?
How is the dependability for large subjects? For subjects like a poet where less than a hundred people even recognize the name?
(The last I saw on this was years ago, when Wikipedia edged out the Encyclopædia Britannica. It would be strange to be less dependable now?!)
I discuss how you can see bad behaviour from even old accounts at HN, dismissing serious references with just hand waving.
This got a well written answer about how non serious my example reference was, arguing with a family anecdote.
When I ask for better sources (I don't know the writer or his/her family from Adam/Eve) -- then I get no answer. :-)