In a previous post about Wikipedia, the following comment is made as justification for using Wiki. (Remember, as said before, I like wiki!)

Fair points. But I still feel that universities should not still be teaching people to refer to authorities. They should be teaching people to think critically and evaluate the materials they get.

While this is something I whole heartedly agree with, it is not as clear cut as you make it seem here.

Yes, students should be able to think critically and evaluate the information they get – this is part of the problem with Wikipedia. When you read an article what mechanisms are available for you to evaluate what is said, other than weeding out the obvious nonsense (such as some edits to Albert Einstein’s page saying he was a Nazi). Wikipedia articles rarely cite source materials, often sneak original research in under the radar and are very often so badly written it is not possible to backtrace even when sources are mentioned.

For undergraduate study, surely the idea is to read and research through the published materials to demonstrate the ability to research and to critically assess information which has already been assessed – giving a level playing field. By using Wiki for this, it strikes me that any old nutter can get their ideas taken on board because there is no mechanism for verifying the information (beyond anecdotal experience).

Using Wikipedia as a citation is similar (IMHO) to using something like Encarta as an example for a science lesson.