Studies that have done random fact checking of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica show no significant difference between the two in correctness. Wikipedia, while a bit dodgy to start, is rapidly becoming a very good and rather reliable reference.
The turning point for me was the flagging of statements in Wikipedia that are not supported by references. You will also see warnings on entries that are questionable. These are great innovations.
Still, I’d be skeptical of Wikipedia entries on topics that are likely to generate controversy (abortion, conspiracy theories, bio of George W. Bush, etc.) and I wouldn’t rely on any portion of an entry that does analysis, as opposed to presenting facts.
And for info on popular culture (e.g., who is Eddie Izzard?), Wikipedia is peerless. It really excels on this stuff. It also gets updated very quickly with fast-breaking news (e.g., deaths of celebrities).
In short, I’d say it is safe to rely on Wikipedia for any purpose that one would rely on any other encyclopedia, i.e., general reference, but not scholarly research or high-stakes questions.