Wikipedia has some major issues for real research and there are good reasons why universities don't allow students to include wikipedia links as citations in their papers. The information there simply isn't curated properly.
A main gripe is that more often than not, the supporting links for claims made in wikipedia articles are broken or of poor quality. Another is the tendency of ideologues to remove anything they disagree with in their particular domain.
It's useful for finding trivial information (flag of Botswana, say) but otherwise I usually block wikipedia from search results.
> there are good reasons why universities don't allow students to include wikipedia links as citations in their papers
That reason is because Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It's too far removed from a source of information to be appropriate to cite. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the site; it's basically never appropriate to cite any kind of encyclopedia.
If there's a specific piece of information you found on Wikipedia, you chase down Wikipedia's source for that information and cite that. If you're using Wikipedia as a general reference, you don't need to cite that at all.
A main gripe is that more often than not, the supporting links for claims made in wikipedia articles are broken or of poor quality. Another is the tendency of ideologues to remove anything they disagree with in their particular domain.
It's useful for finding trivial information (flag of Botswana, say) but otherwise I usually block wikipedia from search results.