In academia, Wikepedia citations are generally a no no. One reason is their unrelaibity (the author is citing a source that they themselves can edit). More importantly, Wikepedia may be a good place to find primary sources, but in itself it is a secondary source.
There is plenty of reasons why wikipedia is an inapropriate source to cite most of the time in academia, but that surely is not one of them.
Acedemics cite their own papers or other sources they have editorial control over all the time.
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
Wikipedia is good for finding secondary source, and then primary sources by following the links.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_an...