Agreed. Both sides would need to learn a lot for that to happen. I think there's a vast chasm in fact.
Moreover, most academics don't have time for the wiki part. They barely have time for the papers part. Some academics get to write graduate texts because they can get credit for that, but that's about it. They do get time to write lectures to give to students though (sometimes barely).
But there's a problem. In mathematics, a result may depend on definitions, e.g. whether a ring has a unit element or not, which definition of natural number you are using, or which definition of compact, whether you allow the axiom of choice, what definition of norm you are using, or how a function is normalised. The actual results may be completely different in different books depending on the assumptions made and the precise definitions given. Language also changes over time. Sometimes the same word is used to mean totally different things, and the meaning depends not just on context, but era!
What happens in Wikipedia is you sometimes get a mosaic view of things which are not compatible. Only an experienced expert in the field can spot that and correct it, and it may be days of work to cleanly demonstrate why it is an error. Wikipedians can add such errors far faster than they can be noticed, corrected and justified.
The issue is that people think of science in a reductionist kind of way as a list of true statements. Books are lists of true statements and you can pick and choose the ones you understand and collect them together however you like. But this is totally false. Maybe the only reason you can even understand the book is because the author took pains to define things in such a way that a pedagogically sound route through the material exists.
In the mean time, academics are marking the same wrong answers to homework assignments and in written projects and dissertations over and over again. So this is a huge problem.
(This is to say nothing of the fact that many students believe that using quotations from Wikipedia without attribution in dissertations is permissible, presumably because Wikipedia allows this for public domain sources or something like that.)
What process or processes can bridge the vast chasm between what academics are trying to do on the one hand (advance the forefront of knowledge and disseminate it through teaching to the next generation) and what is being done on the other hand by wikipedians (collate human general knowledge in a way that is easily accessible to all)? There's a vast gap and it is precisely at the intersection of these two great enterprises that things are going woefully wrong.