You just lost all credibility.
I dunno. I never found the wiki particularly useful, except as a resource for the codex. Whenever it starts trying to summarize or present a narrative, which isn't often enough to be particularly useful, bias and mis-information seep in to cast doubts on the reliability. The fall of the dales wiki entry (probably still) claimed that there was evidence that the Chantry was responsible for spreading dark rumors about the Dales, even going so far as to cite... the Chantry-written codex about how dark rumors circulated, but which never claimed or even suggested the Chantry was responsible for them.
Things like that, where your entire perception of a conflict would be scewed by reading someone else's headcanon presented as fact, is why I'm less than impressed by the wiki. (Not to mention that one DA poster, long ago, once made an argument on the basis of a wiki article he had personally edited.)
Codes are useful, even dialogue citations, but only when they're removed from someone else's fact-adding interpretation. Someone else once tried to argue that Alistair was a raging pro-mage monarch who was itching for a chance to confront the Chantry and agreed with Anders based on... not disagreeing vehemently with Anders in the DA2 cameo. I entered that conversation thinking I was about to see some new dialogue I had never heard before, and instead-
Well, grains of salt.