Re wikipedia, I think it's most interesting how you choose which pages are trustworthy and which ones are not, without doing a detailed analysis on all the sources listed.

What are the working heuristics?

What's terrible about some Wikipedia pages is when you personally don't know they are controversial.

It should be vastly more prominent when there are tensions on an article and even admins shouldn't have the power to hide this.

Admins do not, in fact, have the power to hide tensions on an article, as even the act of deletion produces public logs. Certainly if you don't know to look for them, you won't see them, though.

The main page should become a disjointed piece of both sides writing areas of the article. Right now, admins pick the side and moderate the other away into the history.

Good point. Would it be that hard to write a Chrome plugin that adds a "Tensionmeter" to each Wikipedia page?

Based on the edit and discussion history, the Tensionmeter could be green, yellow, or red.

The different parts of the article text could be colorcoded according to similar metrics.

I wonder what it would be for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation

Yet I still am suspicious about wikipedia and only use it for pretty superficial research.

I've never read a wikipedia article and took it at face value. You might say we should treat all texts the same, and you might be right. But let's not pretend it's some beacon of truth ?

There's a million reasons for why Wikipedia is usually a good source of information, without being a good reference.

You know what can be a good reference? One or more of the references that Wikipedia cites at the bottom of the page.