References to Wikipedia articles are fairly common on Math Overflow and elsewhere, but I'm one of those people who wonder whether the Wikipedia framework will evolve toward more rather than less useful information at relatively advanced levels of mathematics. There are at the moment approximately 23581 mathematics entries, which of course I haven't read systematically. But my smaller sample has usually left me with some doubts about balance, reliability, thoroughness of entries. Often the coverage is spotty, while the references and links are erratic. Outright falsehoods seem rare compared with skewed or outdated versions of what is known. Obviously it takes considerable effort by individuals to make Wikipedia entries complete, accurate, up-to-date. And will the site itself be sustainable over decades to come?
Over the centuries print encyclopedias of all sizes and shapes have existed, some more useful and reliable than others but all impossible to update continuously. Advanced mathematics has benefited relatively little from these volumes. Commercially published mathematical book series called "encyclopedias" tend to be uneven at best. One series collects monographs on special topics, of varying quality and coverage. So the Internet might promise better things. But many general-reader Wikipedia entries such as biographical sketches are disappointing. Editing is possible, but sometimes the site is the target of those wanting to rewrite history. (I've made only one foray into editing, to correct the common misspelling of our family name in a biographical sketch of my oldest brother's thesis advisor. But I could see other fuzzy parts of that sketch that would be complicated to rewrite in detail.)