My policy on citing Wikipedia
I think that where there is no dispute as to facts or definitions, Wikipedia tends to be a very good reference that is comprehensive and accurate. Also, Wikipedia articles often have good lists of external links and other references. For these reasons, I am continuing to cite Wikipedia. And on subjects that are known to be controversial, e.g., the evolution controversy, knowledgeable people have the sense to take Wikipedia with a big grain of salt. I feel that the real trouble arises when people mistakenly trust Wikipedia because they have no reason to suspect that a particular disputed item has been censored. An example was the controversy over whether or not to list "Of Pandas and People" -- the book that Judge Jones ruled could not even be mentioned officially in public school classes -- in the Wikipedia list of "banned books." IMO most people would agree that it should have been listed -- it met the same criteria as many other books that were listed (the control freaks at Wikipedia completely rewrote the whole "banned books" article rather than list this book). Another example was the controversy over whether the definition of "reverse engineering" should include the "reverse engineering" of natural objects as well as man-made objects. I have proposed that Wikipedia handle disputed items by simply adding them to Wikipedia along with statements that they are disputed and external links to websites where the dispute is discussed or debated.