[morzh]

Wikipedia, the English version of it, is that good middle of readily available info and its accuracy, considering it could be, at least temporarily, edited by God knows whom.

This is because you haven't read Russian Wikipedia which, in addition to some very inaccurate statements (in the past, perhaps they are better now) also uses not very academic language with plenty of emotional adjectives, which always ticks me off.

Wikipedia has decent article in medicine, pharmacology, chemistry etc. It is not too bad in history either.

Again, if one wants a scientific article, he should go to the scientific source library and use that one. Wikipedia, to me, never pretended to be as authoritative as Britannica was. And then, any Encyclopaedia, or, for that matter, scientific source, is only good up to up-to-date scientific knowledge; what was true yesterday, could be insufficiently accurate, inaccurate, or plain wrong today. And then could become true again tomorrow.

With to a degree exception of the math, science is fickle as a woman in Rigoletto's aria. Qual piuma al vento.