It's interesting how wikipedia works. Whenever you have an idea or something likewise and the fact on wikipedia agrees with you, then it must be true. And when your opinion doesn't agree with what is claimed on wikipedia, then what it says on wikipedia is just bullshit. And then you feel even smarter.
Most oftenly wikipedia is actually correct, and mark most oftenly, I'm not saying that it's always correct. A year ago or so a friend of mine discovered some inaccuracy on the article about optics, and there was this other historical thing I discovered on swedish wikipedia a while ago I'll expand on later, however, if you search through the place long enough, you'll find that most information you get there's pretty accurate.
Take the following example, what does the average man know about Sweden in the late 10th century…? Well, most people would say "vikings" and have no idea about economic, agricultural or political issues. In fact, most Swedes probably have no idea about it.
Now, if I then say the following, King Erik Segersäll ruled Sweden between ca 970-995. He was the son of his precedor King Edmund Eriksson succeded by his son King Olof Skötkonung, the first Swedish king to be baptised, although King Erik was the first Christian King of Sweden. King Erik shall according to old chronicles both have claimed a victory in a battle against an army of vikings at Fyrisvallarna ca 985, and made the Danish King Sven Tveskägg step down from his throne. Most historical chronicles from that era records that king Erik married a woman who gained the Swedish name Gunhild, although she was originally the daughter of the Polish Prince Mieszko, and sister to the "first" Polish King, Boleslav I. King Erik died of illness which during his time was called "lungsoten" and was buried in Old Uppsala.
Something like that is what was claimed on Swedish wikipedia a couple of years ago.
Would you trust it...?
Well, most of you wouldn't be able to tell.
There is one little error in what was claimed. And that is that King Erik Segersäll probably not was the son of King Edmund Eriksson, although several historical chronicles written on the order of King Gustav I Vasa in the 16th century claims otherwise.
Whoever wrote that mustn't have been an aquinted historian, but, would you say that now that we've discovered one tiny error, then everything should be looked upon with doubt...?
Apperently wikipedia says that this guy named George Washington was the first president of the United States. Should we really trust that... I mean... it's a free encyclopedia... Anyone could have edited it... Therefore it must be wrong, right...?