That is not false, but it's misleading nonethelesss:

1. As Stacy Schiff (writing at the New Yorker) put it, "Wikipedia has evolved into a regulatory thicket". The rules (which include "policies", "guidelines", "user space essays", Arbcom findings, and unwritten traditions) currently comprise a chaotic hodgepodge of mutually contradictory and virtually unenforceable "wikilaws". One "rule" advises the user to "ignore all rules!", which obviously contradicts itself!

2. Many articles fail to provide any citations. Without naming names, one of the most prolific authors of (often otherwise useful) math articles at WP is particularly prone to this, as are several of his slightly less prolific peers.

3. Many woo-promoting articles at WP do cite sources; the trouble is that these "sources" are cranky personal webpages, or sometimes publications widely regarded as "junk journals", or even books published by vanity presses or cranky papers "published" by an e-journal founded by some crank soley in order to "publish" his own work (sadly, this a growing genre). To some extent, only a genuine expert will know which journals generally publish papers which can be taken seriously and which publish almost anything which they recieve.

[Schiff's essay is well worth reading; see http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200.../060731fa_fact . Ironically, it played a role in uncovering one of the more infamous Wikipedia scandals; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=204408983 for the current Wikipedia account. As a former Wikipedian who had some contact with Essjay and may also have had some unknowing interactions with his sockpuppets, I may not be able to claim to be entirely unbiased, but I was comparitively unaffected by this event, which broke after I had departed.]