You may have fewer people modifying it, but you have fewer people who can fix it or flag it as well. The only truly terrible Wiki page I have seen in years was about a fairly obscure family of insects. I have seen many pages that weren't great, but aside from that one none that were actually wildly inaccurate. That page was fixed within a couple of months, too, BTW. I think Wikipedia is a good place to start for a great many topics, but depending on what you are studying you will probably want to check out some other sources as well.Try it sometime and see how long your change lasts. Wikipedia is quite reliable for heavily traveled topics, although it becomes less and less reliable as the subject matter gets more esoteric. The real problem here is the assumption that coniferous and deciduous are exclusive categories; as OtherWhiteMeat has pointed out, they are not. The larch is a deciduous conifer.Don't trust Wikipedia. Anyone can change it. You mentioned that it contradicted itself. It was probably written by one person, and then edited by another.
I always figured it was the opposite.
Less people are likely to even know the name of the esoteric topic, so you'll have less people modifying it.
Whereas more people know what an elephant is (for example), so there's a bigger chance that that will get changed.
The way I see it anyway.