I, myself, am very against using Wikipedia as an academic source. In fact, in my experience, many academic professors will say the same.
Wikipedia is a open-edit informational source and is many times edited by non-professionals. While it's completely possible that a large volume of the information is reliable, there is still quite a bit that is quite inaccurate. When it comes to academics, Wikipedia provides a good starting base for research. That's what it should be taken as, and not a catch-all information source.
Even Wikipedia admits it's validity fault in it's 'General Disclaimer':
"Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information...
...That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. Note that most other encyclopedias and reference works also have similar disclaimers."
In short, be sparse with the use of Wikipedia and try to avoid it as an actual source in an academic piece.