According to the Economist, and spread over different language groups.
tell you the truth, i'd trust wikipedia over most other sources on the vast majority of topics in a heartbeat. it's not the best source for all topics but i'll contend that it's by far the best for most of them.
wikipedia is certainly more credible than the economist to say the least, which recently seems to have become very much about political pandering and snarky remarks rather than relevant facts or even a coherent argument.
sure i have seen obviously biased or false crap on wikipedia too, but the very fact that it can be edited by anyone usually means that a reasonable consensus is reached.
the great thing about wikipedia is that ultimately, the better reasoned and justified content tends to stay, while other sources usually have a very specific slant or dogma.