Unfortunately, no, it's not like that anymore. They've been allowing the use of wikipedia for years. That's fucking wild because Wikipedia refuses to use primary source evidence, and effectively operates as a tertiary source at best.

Back in your day, the universities basically enforced the old methodology of research, and it's a huge problem that we can't trust these institutions, but they've absolutely raped their own credibility to death.

When academic journals rescind a publication, it's a huge deal. The one linking vaccines to autism was done because it was a clear problem with the study, and the actual anti-vaxxers were harping on it. But when they rescinded the publication on the effectiveness of Ivermectin, because it was true but you don't like who's citing it... then you've got a major ethical crisis on your hands.

Even the dictionaries can't be trusted. Merriam Webster changed the definition of "Sexual Preference" to assert that it was a homophobic slur solely because Mazie Hirono claimed it was despite all evidence to the contrary. They never gave any warning for the definition change, and they never sought evidence for it. They just changed the definition officially within hours of it being said. Worse, they still define it as offensive.

How are we, as a society, capable of working with institutions of formal knowledge, when those institutions are so corrupt that they are prepared to change the English language itself in order to support the idiotic and un-evidenced claims of middling politicians at the drop of a hat; then stick to that lie for decades in spite of observable reality.