Wikipedia has been both celebrated and panned on these pages. Its strength is that anyone can edit it, meaning there are thousands of people out there to improve every article. Its weakness, of course, is that anyone can edit it.
A new site called Veropedia has recently launched. Its goal is to collect the best that Wikipedia has to offer and save it in a stable, quality-controlled version that can no longer be edited by anyone except Veropedia staff. Articles about which there no longer appears to be any controversy on Wikipedia (that is, they're no longer marked for further editing or their veracity formally questioned) are marked for inclusion on Veropedia, reviewed by editors and academics, and added to the site.
The other main difference between Wikipedia and Veropedia is that Veropedia is a for-profit site supported by advertising. It's an interesting way to try to monetize all of the information contributed by Wikipedia's huge group of volunteers. I'm not sure it adds anything, though, since most people are fairly satisfied with the accuracy of Wikipedia for their needs. And I'd be surprised if anyone who thinks that Wikipedia is not reliable enough is likely to put any more faith in the editors of Veropedia.