is this horrible or wonderful?

We've all heard it, "wikipedia is not a source," not that this has stopped any of us from actually using the site and then just omitting it from the bibliography of whatever we are researching.

And yet, today while reading an article blurb on The New York Time's blog "Ideas" http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/ I clicked a link to John Rawl's biography onto to find myself on... his Wikipedia page? Is this a vindication of a formally dubious source or reason to discredit a well-established source? In other words, what the fuck?