Is Wikipedia Always A Reliable Source?
No, of course not. I waste far too much time on trying to correct obscure matters of phylogeny that nobody else cares about. There are two primary obstacles to my task:
1. Someone who owns the authoratitive '(Insert organism's here) of the World' from 2001; and refuses to accept that the classification in it has been outdated
2. Someone who read an article supporting an intriguing new hypothesis and decided that it is therefore now Uncontrovertible Fact; and is determined the Taxobox and article content will now reflect this Truth.
But nobody anywhere thinks Wikipedia is always reliable. If you're not happy with the presentation of an article on Wikipedia, wouldn't a better approach be to edit it; or raise your concerns on the talk page?