I have yet to find glaring errors there.
Wiki also doesnít just post facts, but is good on citing its sources, which of course is the crucial part.
Perhaps it has improved since I last spent much time there... But at least a few months or a year or so ago, I did have these kind of problems with Wikipedia a couple times. Perhaps it depends what sorts of topics you're searching for. But, when you're doing it for work or school, a couple or a few times can quickly feel like too many. Although, it doesn't help that professors tend to go on about Wiki just being "generally" unreliable. I'm not sure that's exactly true, either. It does
make the cases where it is incomplete or dubious, more glaring for me.
While it leads to many different kinds of documents, by and large I've found Galileo to be very useful for academic materials. Not perfect, but good. And the citations are more often to academic publications than people whose credentials are either 1) outside academia, 2) from places I can't recognize or know the standards for or 3) simply not established. However, just how
useful Galileo is, depends on what kind of subjects you are looking for, how patient you are in delving into what it gives you (often produces dense and very specialized documents), and how many subscriptions your provider/institution has with the sources Galileo links up with.