Wikipedia: The Great Contradiction

How can any collection of information be considered legitimate if it's not reliable and consistent?  After reading the first half of The World of Wikipedia, I am annoyed that I ever used this site for information; and that I was lazily swayed by the "Google effect". (p83)  I realize that Wikipedia is an awesome reference project, similar to a "communal garden" (p 51), but how can it be compared to a legitimate encyclopedia?  Poor Encyclopedia Britannica, a respected reference for so many years, now unable to remain cost-effective and keep up with this Wiki-trend.  I would be happy take the extra few minutes to insert a disk into the computer if it meant that I would not be wasting my time with unreliable research.  I'm not totally bashing Wikipedia.  I just have an appreciation for the time and effort it takes to develop an encyclopedia that has verified sources, remains consistent, and is (for the most part) unbiased.  The latter being another problem with WP. (p 77)  Who could trust an article if it was unknowingly written by a left-winger or right-winger or an extremist of any kind?  I'll save that type of information for the chat pages.  I'm sure most of the articles on serious subjects are reliable, but it is simply a chance that shouldn't be taken while writing papers, or anywhere in the education system.  Still, credit must be given to how fast it grew throughout the world and the 256 languages it represents. (p 44)  Socially, it shows that people truly can, and desire to work together.  As for my personal research, I'll stick to the real encyclopedias.