Anyone can edit Wikipedia so it's an unreliable source ... I'm not sure I know what that word means "radical" in English cos is a lot of slang on that word. But I think it means off side thinking .. So yes it is then :)
Is Wikipedia radical? Why or why not?
Wikipedia can be 😨. It can be unreliable and dangerous. People can manipulated the info and change the facts they can even add stuff that isn't true.
Wikipedia should never be used as a solitary source. Like Jamie says, anyone can edit it, but usually just people in the field presented will do so.
Wiki does monitor edits though, but that isn't instantaneous and it doesn't mean they will delete any edits.
Wikipedia is the "people's encyclopedia". They even ask for donations periodically from the viewing public (along with private funding).
Also, if an edit is made, it doesn't have to have a citation to prove it and Wiki will note that as "citation needed" so people will be aware of it.
It's not a bad source, but it shouldn't be used as an only source. As far as it being "radical"....I don't know. It depends on the people writing it and editing it (correcting , adding and deleting.).
It also depends of the people viewing it whether or not they consider it radical.
It's always best to use at least three sources when researching something.
Radical how?
Are you asking if it is "advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party?"
The most appropriate word to describe Wikipedia is "unreliable". Some entries are undoubtedly radical, some are equally conservative. It just isn't worth visiting if you're looking for trustworthy information.