"Together, we can create a reality that we can all agree on--the reality we just agreed on."

Stephan Colbert was dead on with his "Word of the Day". I remember when this episode originally aired and it is still as true now as it was then. Despite the editors' best efforts, wikipedia will never be a scholarly source as long as it allows its readers to post articles. Don't get me wrong, removing the unique authorship of wikipedia is not what I seek. If I want to read a regular encyclopedia I will surf elsewhere. I am drawn to wikipedia by its likelihood to be wrong. I am allowed to question what I read, therefore, enabling a more involved and interacting experience in education. Something you simply can not achieve with a traditional encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is a great source for any report--especially at the collegiate level. But not as a primary source. I recently was instructed to write a report on structural proteins. I could have googled the term, but instead decided to wikipedia it (what is the wiki verb equivalent to "googled). I found more than enough information that allowed me to branch away from wikipedia into more scholarly articles on specific structural proteins. I was able to find articles with the key words I found on wiki. Certainly I would never cite wikipedia in an essay, But would you ever cite EncyclopediaBritanica?
BTW
I checked the "Elephant" entry on wikipedia and found no mention of Colbert's attempt to add the factoid mentioned on the Report.