I think Wikipedia is a really convenient way to get some quick info in general, but I would never cite it in a paper or trust it for something important without first looking into more trustworthy sources.

I love wikipedia, consult it often, and think it is a very powerful means of disseminating information, but would never cite it in a paper. As the cofounder said, you shouldn't be citing an encyclopedia in the first place, even if Wikipedia is far more than a traditional one like Britannica. Furthermore, while the vast majority of the content is correct, I've come across "Jimmy smells like poo" or "my dog is really cute" in the middle of an otherwise academic article. While I'm sure Jimmy does indeed smell like poo, there are some things that are just plain wrong (like the Jesuits) which throws the legitimacy of the whole thing into question.