What is the major criticism of Wikipedia and how is it related to Wikipedia as a source of reliable and valid information?

The notion that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" is false. Sure, any company or famous person with boatloads of money can pay to have information about themselves manipulated or removed, but for the rest of us, the chances of our edits being accepted and actually posted are almost nil.

The editing group, according to former editors who have left in disgust, is a closed clique of self-important demigods with a "bro mentality" who all but ban entry into their exclusive little club. Their obsession with the rituals of process discourages the likes of you and me from submitting a well-intentioned correction of a misspelled word or term in a subject that we might be accredited experts in with decades of experience just because we are outsiders to their exclusive kingdom.

How do I know this? Because, with the best of intentions, I signed up to be a volunteer editor to not only to help copyedit some of the existing poorly written articles, but to provide information in countless subjects that are being ignored.

Having to send a few lines of information through layer upon layer of citation process, then having to justify those citations up the hierarchy of "little Jesuses on tin wheels" whom will hold up your 3 lines of information indefinitely while they bicker among themselves regarding the placement of a comma or whether or not to use a semi-colon...

Well, I didn't stick around long enough to learn the fate of my three lines, which are probably still in limbo and will never see the light of day. Life's too short to waste it on an organization tied up in the knots of its own red tape.

I can only conclude that the best, most accurate information on the widest variety of subjects will never make it into Wikipedia because the stakeholder group repels the willingly-shared knowledge and fresh ideas on subjects its editors are clueless about because it threatens the power of its exclusive club of know-it-alls.

Major criticism is mostly articles are written from American point of view. Wikipedia can only be trusted for non-controversial topics only and that too not all the time.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia and make it say whatever they want.

It's OK for info/reference, but you never, ever, use it as "fact".

anyone can edit it. and so anyone can put in false information.

however, if you are smart enough, you will just check the sources at the bottom of the page for the information posted, and use that instead.

The major criticism is that it is crowd-written. Anyone at all can add content or edit it. There is a certain level of oversight, but there are no staff members or funding for objective fact checking of each article.