Wikipedia has a reputation for lacking credibility. While in university, I recall professors scoffing at the thought of citing wikipedia as a source. This reputation and contempt are mis-directed. The only reason for the academics to look down on wikipedia is because wikipedia threatens the entire structure of academic publication, and thus the scholar's traditional way of earning money.
Most academic research labs are set up in a pyramid structure, with the senior PhDs at the top collecting the glory while the grad students at the bottom do all of the work. The only motivation for the grad students is to get their name on a paper, leading to their PhD, and ultimately to a comfortable tenured position. Nearly all of the papers published into academic journals will sit on a hidden shelf collecting dust, having fewer than 5 readers ever skimming their abstracts or summaries.
Fields such as psychology pull in billions of dollars in tuition and textbooks, but this field doesn't actually do anything... nothing ground-breaking has come out of psychology since the 70's. It's a self-perpetuating system that continues to function because those within it still buy in, just like any pyramid.
Wikipedia removes the barriers to publication. Years spent in school can be by-passed by wiki-peer reviews that will bring the best articles to the top, and eliminate the weaker ones. Not only does wikipedia give access to publication, it also gives consideration to controversy by linking both sides. Traditional academic journals are more like speeches than dialogues, with the fame of the writer often determining the credibility of the work.
With more writers and editors, Wikipedia will continue to improve in both scope and quality. The future of publication is the wikipedia. In the near future, a well published article on Wikipedia that stands the test of re-edits will attain more credibility, certainly more readers, and more prestige than a traditional academic journal publication.
