Several thoughts:
Nobody will argue that wikipedia isn't convenient, but I will counter that it is only RELATIVELY convenient because you don't yet have fluidity in using other resources. Practice makes perfect, and this become easier over time once you are using them properly. You should take the first two years of medical school to learn to be comfortable and adept at looking up information and in particular consuming primary research yourself. Uptodate.com is of course a great curated and heavily annotated resource. Pubmed, OMIM, Kegg pathways, ACR appropriateness criteria, USPSTF...are just a few resources I used this week alone.
Even if you have no interest in performing research, you are still expected to be able to digest and apply the latest changes in medicine -- which often isn't published as guidelines or expert opinion but rather simply as published results.
Your patients more and more often will be reading wikipedia themselves, so doesn't this beg the question: What additional value/information are you bring to them that they don't already have?
Now, I'm all for checking out Wikipedia, knowing that it isn't reliable. In fact, you should. I always ask my patients what they have read about their disease/diagnosis. Often it is WAY off base, (I snarkily say that if you WebMD or google your symptoms too long, you will eventually decide you have a terminal illness). For some reason, people don't like to admit that they are reading things on line - like they are somehow "cheating on you" or second-guessing your work. But if you don't address either what the patient has read or their concerns based on their readings, then they will not leave your office/clinic/ED/hospital feeling entirely satisfied. Just last week I had a daughter of a patient admit that she looked up a new medication we started as an inpatient on her mother, and that she read a wiki page on a related disease and had a ton of questions assuming we had made a diagnosis and were just not telling them -- all before we even came to talk to her about why we started the med. [As an aside: uptodate.com also has "basic" and "beyond the basics" patient education handouts for many of the diseases that you can print out and share that are pretty nifty too. Depending on your institution's account, and the patient's education/motivation you can also extend a temporary access to uptodate for a few days, too, although I never have.]
You will inevitably have to deal with data of varying reliability throughout your career by somehow "tagging" information in your brain based on the source. When you read in Nature or NEJM a research article, or hear a world-expert at a conference says "based on my research, I think x,y,z" you might "tag" that in your memory as much more reliable and differently than when a doctor says "in my experience...a,b,c.". Wikipedia is no different.
And as L2D says, it's "mostly" right - but tell your patients that when you make a mistake. I remember a classmate in medical school looking up "sick sinus syndrome" once on wiki and it had this strange rant about how it is on the rise in dogs for an unknown reason ...I wish I would have screen-captured it, because that section disappeared within a couple days. General wiki information is only good when it is right. Like Cr clearance: it's is a good measure of kidney function. Except when it isn't. Likewise, wiki can be good until it isn't. That's where you can get into trouble. So being aware of when information/tools/equations breakdown is another aspect of learning medicine: I had another patient this week who always had super-high fasting blood sugars many times in the past 3 years, but rock-solid low HbA1c. Of course, people were assuming nothing was wrong, and treating the A1c numbers, when in fact HbA1c is not accurate measures of glucose control for him, and he is actually an un-diagnosed diabetic.
