First and foremost I think wikipedia is fast becoming utterly useless bullshit, infested with all manner of nerd-on-a-power-trip types excited at the through of playing bureaucrat every afternoon after finishing their geometry homework. Wikipedia can be, and used to be, full of interesting information, functioning well as a starting point to learn about new things and fuel one's further curiosity in a subject. However, it now feels almost like a MMORPG in which you get to play an editor working on a fictional encyclopedia. Now we need to merge articles wherever possible to save on fictional paper from a fictional forest, remove every image to save our fictional publisher fictional money on fictional ink, and if you want to claim that the Pope is Catholic you'd damn well better have a New York Times article backing you up (one that's available online because in this hustle-and-bustle world who can be bothered expending any effort beyond a single mouse click to check a source?), and at least a dozen other Reliable Sources confirming that the New York Times does, in fact, exist and is, in fact notable. Otherwise, you can go shove your "original research" up your non-notable ass.

At any rate, my point is that by its very nature wikipedia will never, EVER be considered a legitimate academic resource, and in futilely trying to be one it's wasting what unique potential it has as a heavily trafficked open online encyclopedia.