i find the academic reaction against wikipedia is more out of fear and doesn't really hold up to serious scrutiny.

if i write you a paper, i'm going to provide citations for anything that seems like it should require one. if you don't trust me, you check the source. when wikipedia produces an article, it is supposed to cite a source - and usually does. if you don't trust it, you check the source. if it doesn't provide a source, you point out it's not sourced. so, it's the same thing, either way.

contrary to the prevailing mythology, wikipedia is actually a valuable resource precisely because it collects a huge number of sources together into one place.

that's frightening to a professional researcher that may see a challenge to their vocation.

i mean, obviously, we all need to be rigourous in checking our sources. but if you carefully work through the issue, wikipedia doesn't come off worse than any other type of mass media or personal communication, and the process of verifying information is really precisely the same.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/the-dayside/wikipedia--pro-and-con-a-dayside-post