Is there another site that is generally edited by users who know something about the subject, but is not just narrowly focussed on one subject, and doesn’t have the priggish entrenched arsehole attitude amongst its editors that Wikipedia has developed? Obviously there’s nothing that’s going to have quite the breadth, but is there anything similar, which spans all general subjects?
H2G2 (Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition) is the closest I can think of, other than the various sites that actually use Wikipedia as a base, like the Plain Language and Simple Wikis.
There’s the Probert Encyclopaedia
Conservapedia, if Wikipedia is too liberal for you. Hell, the bible is too liberal for these people, they are literally making their own version of it.
I’m not sure if the last 2 posts were supposed to be a joke, a dig or helpful; but I’ll clarify that I’m not accusing wikipedia of having any particular political slant, the entrenched behavior I see is mainly on books/entertainment type stuff, because that’s the only stuff I’ve attempted edits to, but it leads me to doubt the usefulness of the politali/important stuff.
Mine, at least, was just meant to be a joke. 
I don’t generally trust Wikipedia when it comes to “serious” subjects. If anything, I may check whatever sources are giving in an article and begin my own search from there.
I only use Wikipedia for totally non-controversial topics, like information about what airlines fly to a particular airport. For that it seems perfectly accurate.
Before there was Wikipedia, there was Everything2. It’s still around, but largely dormant.
And RationalWiki for the other side. Both are proof that irrational conclusions and general dumbshittery are bipartisan.
Wikipedia’s founder is big into libertarianism, but I don’t notice any big systematic bias. That won’t stop people from claiming it. I don’t notice anything with the “staff” but then I don’t edit beyond minor typos. Certain pages are full of crazy (e.g. Armenian genocide, at least at one time).
Everything2 and h2g2 are similar in that they have less serious articles and don’t require any accuracy but are still affected by other users.
It’s perfectly trustworthy 99.9% of the time and I believe it but I wouldn’t let a student use it as a reference. The method you describe is helpful.