I think the issue isn't citing it directly, it's citing it incorrectly. Wikipedia is a snapshot collective understanding of a topic, hopefully in a meaningfully cited manner. It's not that it contains false information or unreviewed information, it's that you're attempting to cite a discussion and collective work that is constantly in flux. I think that if you were inclined to actually do investigative work, you'd find yourself:

* Interviewing "experts" (their level of expertise would be something you'd need to establish since no third party has prescribed that) who contribute and discuss the topic.

* Referencing cited sources.

* Referencing edit history and reverted changes, rejected sources, etc.

I think the issue is that academia has a lot of systems in place (I'd argue that they're only partially effective) that help establish credibility of experts and sources through "academic honesty" policies.

IMO, part of figuring out how to properly cite wikipedia will come with a reckoning that academic honesty isn't 100% nor are the arguments of authority that come from academia quite enough to establish credibility. I think that's the real issue -- this shorthand is pretty good, but it doesn't mesh with wikipedia's own shorthand.