Wikipedia is starting point...not the authority
This is the same judicial system ignorance that had a district judge tossing out a case because the issue at hand had been "raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry"
Wikipedia unfortunately benefits from the word 'encyclopedia' which people have historically trusted because information entered into a published encyclopedia, such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, has been researched and fact-checked by professionals. Wikipedia is merely self-checked by the users, and in some cases by companies and people with a vested interest in making the "facts" portray them in a favorable light. It is also susceptible to people entering completely false information.
Were I a judge and an attorney or witness told me their case used information that came from Wikipedia I'd
1) laugh, and
2) tell them to get some credible experts, and
3) sanction them for wasting the court's valuable time.