Summary:

Good examples of unreliability in my judgement resolve yes, options that do not meet the submission standards resolve N/A, submissions which are not good examples of unreliability in my judgement resolve no.

I will not trade in this market, and my current plan is to close the market in one week and give a 1000 mana award to the best submission.

Please submit Wikipedia articles in the format [article name] - [link to article]

I'm also open to suggestions for improving this format, so please let me know if you have any. I may update these rules while staying within the spirit of the question.

Premise:

I usually trust Wikipedia, enough that I like using it for market resolutions sometimes. But I know it's not infallible. I'm making this market to solicit examples of its fallibility, so I have a better idea of how much I should trust it in general.

An article doesn’t have to be unambiguously wrong about something to be unreliable. It could simply be too confident that something is true based on the available evidence, or it could be not confident enough that something is false even when it’s been totally debunked. Anything that would make someone think ‘Wow, I would not want to base a market’s resolution on this article as an authoritative source of truth.”

Ideally a submitted article would be obviously unreliable to most manifolders, not requiring you to be an expert in the subject to know that it’s bad. The goal of this market is to find articles that most reasonable manifolders would agree are unreliable. That's what makes it a good example.

Submission standards:

• It should be on English Wikipedia.

• It should not be labeled with a disclaimer that the article is known to have problems.

• It should not be about COVID-19 or any still-controversial War. This is what we’re usually already questioning Wikipedia on, I’d like an example on another topic.

• It should not be a very new article, or about a very obscure topic where unreliability is to be expected.

• It should not be unreliable just because it's currently be in the middle of an edit war.

• It should be a plausible submission, which some people might bet yes on. Don't add things just to bet no on them.

If I think a submission does not meet these standards, I may N/A it. I may also N/A an option if I can't come to decision about if it's a good example or not, but I will try my best to do so.

Resolution:

To make this more fun as a market, I will try to remain vague about my opinions on submissions here, so that you can have counterparties for your bets. I promise not to tell anyone my opinions in private.

I will try to do one early Yes resolution and one early No resolution as examples, and then no more resolutions until market close except for N/A-ing answers that don't meet the submission standards. After market close, I'll resolve all the other submissions.

I'll offer the final disclaimer that I tried for a good while to find good examples of obvious unreliability, and I've failed to find any that meet my standards. I've found some articles I think are pretty bad like Gamer and Neoliberalism, but I don't think they are good examples of the site being unreliable.

I wish you the best of luck!