No.

Pzjgr describes it best as 'entertainment'. One tries to keep an open mind when some personal obsession is 'covered' in a short programme, but 8 times out of 10 the style overrides the content & the errors are too many. It's the same for anybody when their special interest or hobby is covered by Journalists who have to cater to a wider demographic, more often than not the lowest common denominator will rule.
The same is, of course, not always true for all television programmes, many are excellent, well researched, built by real enthusiasts/experts and entertaining. However these are far from the bulk of the gotterdammerung sensationalist presentation of certain channels.

Putting aside some sort of Utopic view that we should all be working strongly from Primary sources (as many here do, respect to them, but not everyone can devote the sheer time and effort required to obtain such stuff) the reasons I don't see it as a sensible source are twofold;
1: Books. Wonderful things, Secondary source by nature but that's no bad thing if the interpretation is good, full of stuff, highly searchable & easily available (if sometimes a little pricey).
2: The Internet. The very fact we're here means we have access to this astonishing tool, one that's deepening in quality if you take the time to search it properly, and attempt to cross-reference any discovery that's new to you in the same way you would for any other source. It's provided us with valuable contact with veterans more easily too, for that 'One who was there' perspective. It also gives us access to those generous souls that do choose to share their Primary work or lifetime of reading, both on the better websites & forums like this.

Documentaries, whether populist or deathly serious usually work best as a trigger to discussions, but are often far too inconsistent in reliability to be used to bolster any point of view, or attempt to discover the facts of a matter.

The same seems true to me as regards Wiki, wonderful starting point but if you stake your reputation on something discovered there never forget that you're standing on shifting 'open source' sands. While the bulk of an article might be solid the bit you quote may have been inserted by a lazy 10 year old, or worse someone with an axe to grind.

Is it me, or is Wiki really improving recently?
Bit by bit a lot of detail seems to be getting tidied up... presumably by the likes of us irritated at some clear error in an article.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.