How could the wikipedia become trustworthy?

I personally have never had any big problems with their articles. However, I do not go to them for articles about controversial stuff. Too many people fighting over the editing of those articles. I mainly go there for history or science information. The only time I have seen an article that I knew was wrong was about a food company. Someone had put in there that the company was about to go under because of a poison that was detected in their food. That was over a year ago and the company is still around and not a hint of any scandal about their food being poisonous.

Since wikipedia is just a bunch of people posting articles, you have to be careful using it. On the whole, it is usually okay, but I have found some errors. Your best bet would be to check what it says from some other source.

For content to be trustworthy, it has to be written by someone you trust. Since the point of Wikipedia is that anybody can edit it, unless you trust everybody, then Wikipedia can't become trustworthy without changing its fundamentally operating principle.

It could not be trustworthy.....
Use the information from this site as reference only. You need to make the final call on your own.

Ever see those small little square brackets that say "citation needed" ? Well, users can add those to statements that require source. When a citation is met, it is then referenced with a number next to the statement which directs you to a source making the claim.

That is how wikipedia is BECOMING trustworthy.

Wikipedia can never become trustworthy, because it does not require any expertise or subject matter knowledge, much less honesty, from the people who write "articles." Wikipedia is a BLOG -- not an encyclopedia.

However, you can often use Wikipedia as a starting point -- and I do -- to point you towards good information. Where there is a citation to an original source this can be helpful IF YOU ACTUALLY GO READ the original source.

On one article, I found that the writer of the encyclopedia article had LIED about the underlying source. He claimed that the US Court of Inquiry had determined that there was radar jamming during the USS Liberty incident, in Finding Number 48. I followed the link and read the report, and there was (a) NO mention of any radar jamming, (b) NO finding Number 48. It was a total lie. But there it was on Wikipedia.

they are trustworthy, they let everybody modify the pages and they have people check recently updated pages for accuracy... plus, i have never gotten bad info. off of their site

I would make the editing regulations much more strict, only allowing those who have had an account for more than 2 months and have made some productive edits.

It can never be trusworthy.