Stratics and UOGuide are about equal in reliability - they just have different strengths and weaknesses.
As a page-based site, Stratics has a lot tighter editorial control, and requires more proof to support changes to information. This can make some updates slower, but also makes the changes more likely to be correct the first time.
As a Wiki, UOGuide can get new information in the hands of players a lot faster, but is more likely to have partial or wrong information at first, that others can correct later. The problem is that someone has to come along to recognize the error, register with UOGuide, and then fix the information. This can occur quickly, as events evolve (much faster than Stratics can change) - but for older or less-used material, it might take a lot longer.
Both sites' search mechanisms leave much to be desired, but we're working on it (after all, neither is all that good with dealing with search requests that mis-spell the target)
******************
An example of how going by player-generated information without an editorial gateway is the method for calculating Fishing Quest point values.
The actual numbers are shallow water fish 1 point, deepwater fish 2 points, and dungeon fish 3 points. These have been repeatedly stated by the Devs.
UOGuide, last I heard, was still insisting on a different point system, which uses the quantity of uses of baits to calculate the point values, resulting in values of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 for those 3 categories.
The error in the UOGuide system is from their using a derived number (the bait count), instead of the base number (as the bait quantity is achieved by dividing the base number by 2, dropping fractions, and rounding down to 100 if over 100). While this was an obvious system to use, when calculating the values in the first days of High Seas through reports of quests compared to rewards, it led to confusion.
Starting in Testing, Crustaceans were bugged to count as 1 point (as shallow water fish) instead of 2 points (deepwater).
We reported this repeatedly, but most those reporting the bug were referring as them counting as 0.5 (bait value) instead of the expected 1.0.
The reality was that they should have been reporting the crustaceans counting as 1 point instead of the expected 2.
The devs fielding these initial error reports were not familiar enough with High Seas' programming that checked on the bug, insisted there was no bug, as the number in the programming WAS 1 (the wrong number, but was what the people using the bait points as their guide insisted was what the value should be).
It was only after one of the devs that DID know the quest system started asking "why do people keep talking about 0.5 and 1.5 values, when the system is all whole numbers?", that it became obvious that the devs were thinking in a different number scale than the bug reporters. This took a couple months to straighten out, via private messages.
Because people insisted on using the bait count as the calculation system, instead of figuring out that the bait count was derived from the calculation numbers that the Devs had given several times since September, it resulted in confusion that kept the Crustacean value bug unfixed until the end of March, when it should have been recognized and fixed before Christmas.
And, those "close enough" numbers are still treated as gospel by many, including one of the EC mod creators.