"Corporate publications are more trustworthy..."? My brief exposure to that arena would lead me to disagree strongly (but I am an engineer and not in marketing). Everything in my experience has to be vetted by multiple layers of the organization or at least people versed in the art of saying something while actually saying nothing. "Corporate publications" is a very broad term, of course, so it depends - financial type things, yes, that has to be pretty 'solid' though there is still room to elide and be disingenuous. Whitepapers are essentially just marketing material; being an engineer and thinking like one is really detrimental, thus I just couldn't do that sort of stuff... And some subset of shareholders will always try to interpret <whatever> is any number of ways, so that is another reason to spin things as needed while not seeming to spin things.

Wikipedia has a pretty robust set of internal controls and correction policies IMO. It may not be authoritative, but it tends to be a good starting point, unless the topic is obscure etc. My brief exposure to higher education would be that yeah you don't want to let students treat Wikipedia as a primary/only source (the lazy ones have that attitude), but I wouldn't go so far as 'not reliable'.

The fundamental issue is ho do you teach people/children to synthesize different sets of information and decide what is useful and what isn't - i.e. to think for themselves? Part of that effort is also teaching them to be self aware enough to understand how their emotions or emotional issues might color their interpretation of the information, never mind evaluating the source of information first...

A lot of parents think it is a really bad idea, teaching children to think for themselves and to be self-aware...