Oh, and here's the thing about Wikipedia:
It usually provides an excellent starting point for researching subjects. There are frequently a lot of references to various sources, from newspapers to reports, which saves time since you can easily locate studies, reports and the like. Not every study and not every report, but enough to get you going, in most cases.
Wikipedia, of course, has built-in weaknesses of which the most obvious is that anyone can edit the content, at any time. If you research recent events, especially anything even slightly controversial, you need to be aware of this. It's a rookie mistake, but one sometimes committed by people who do a lot more day-to-day light research than most.
Googling a subject, while tempting and easy and therefore often the first and only research done, is far more inefficient since most Google searches are weighted based on ads, local cookies, your Google accounts, etc. If we all searched on the exact same terms, we'd each get different results, and most would still not offer the relevance needed.
Library searches are a bit more trustworthy but are usually outdated, always static, and usually weighted by some rather bizarre considerations. If you have access to a university library it's often a better bet than pretty much everything else, provided that they carry the topic you're interested in.
But still, regardless of how you go about your research, you do need to be somewhat well read to do it properly, and it means going beyond the tinfoil stuff that is oh-so-easy but frequently oh-so-wrong.
Good luck.
