I mean, if Wikipedia lies about a topic I'm deeply familiar with, probably more so than anyone else in the universe (the presence of blobs in Linux), because some editor repeatedly censored the facts and the undisputable evidence, how can one trust other pieces of information in there?

I can't. and that's how it should be. there's no such thing as authoritative sources. science is a collaborative enterprise that requires active work to distill information from garbage so as to build knowledge and wisdom. you can use Wikipedia to get some basic information, take the links and references and get some more, but then you *should* seek other independent sources, instead of taking it as sacred scriptures. heck, even sacred scriptures were written by fallible humans, and reflect wisdom and beliefs of their times

Wikipedia is great, but you have to know the right way to use it to not hurt yourself. like a hammer or a knife, it's a tool that can be misused and hurt