I think it's pretty amazing given how hard the the job of accuracy is. It depends on the subject, though. For example, I have a lot of respect for Jen Gunter, a gynecologist who blogs and contributes to The New York Times and debunks companies like Goop. I trust her on topics that she knows more than Wikipedia because I know about her, whereas I don't know who writes Wikipedia pages.
She thinks that for medical knowledge, pages of the Mayo Clinic are more accurate than Wikipedia.
I have edited a few Wikipedia pages myself and it's a rigorous process with checks and balances but I find it requires compromise. For example, my friend Simon Southerton is a well respected DNA scientist who published about the DNA of native Americans confirming they are of Asian descent. The Mormon church claimed native Americans are of Middle Eastern descent.
Long story short, my view of the world is the church tried to stop him from publishing it, he resigned, they excommunicated him but weren't honest about why they were doing it. The editors of Wikipedia found a balance between my version and the church's:
Simon and I think the church was unfair, the church has some view I don't about Simon, and the Wikipedia page landed in the middle.