Wikipedia is an unusual encyclopedia. It averages out to be about as accurate as more traditional paper encyclopedias, but there are a few reasons that you should approach it skeptically.
Wikipedia's average quality is good, but some articles are much better than others. Some Wikipedia articles are well researched, unbiased, and clearly written. Some Wikipedia articles are incomplete, full of authorial bias, lack citations or references, include the author's opinion as fact, use unclear or grammatically incorrect language, and are a mess. Most wikipedia articles are somewhere between those extremes, but the uneven quality is one reason to be careful about relying too much on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a group project, and everyone that edits it does so anonymously or using a screen name. It is hard to verify that the people who have written or worked on an article are knowledgeable about their topic, and an article is often the product of many people's writing and editing.
Wikipedia articles often change. Unless an article has been locked, Wikipedia articles are always subject to change. Often the change is improvement, but not always. Wikipedia is a "living" document in the sense that articles are never "finished", but are instead constantly changing, being edited or rewritten, and so on. Large, high quality articles are less likely to change dramatically than smaller articles in need of improvement.
Wikipedia's definition of "credible source" gives preference to sources available online. This distorts how Wikipedia covers many topics (some subjects have more material available online about them than others) and leads to often wildly different levels of detail for similar topics. Example: at time of writing, Wikipedia has over 100 seperate articles about Norse religion, dieties, and mythology. By contrast, Native American religions get a single page, with a handful of articles dedicated to specific practices, most of which are very short. There is a lot of information on the internet about Norse mythology, while much of the knowledge needed to write a detailed article about most Native American religions may not be written down anywhere.
Opposing Viewpoints and CQ Researcher cover controversial current issues in different ways.
CQ Researcher gives you a summary of a controversial issue, giving equal weight to each side of the dispute, and is a good place to start for the big picture of a topic. CQ Researcher is also good for the history and context it provides, helping you understand how a particular contentious issue became controversial, and how other events or issues might be related to it. Note that not all articles in CQ researcher are equally current.
Opposing Viewpoints is a collection of commentary and opinion writings about controversial issues. The authors of these articles do not try to be objective; they have a strong stance on this particular issue, and their purpose in writing about it is to convince you that they are right. You need to consider their arguments with this in mind.
Credo Reference is a collection of encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other reference sources. They're less good for current events, since they need to wait for the books they include to create new editions. Credo is expecially good at giving you an introduction to an event, person, place, or idea, since it includes many specialized encyclopedias.
ABC-CLIO databases are a mix of history book, encyclopedia, and collection of commentary and analysis. They include fairly up to date information; they're most helpful to understand the history of an issue or movement, although they do include some current events material.