Just because WP has a (VERY rarely used, much less acknowledged) template for religious articles requiring secondary sources, we're supposed to have "respect" for it.
Read the comment thread, if you have the stomach.
At least some of them have sense:
There are extremely smart ways to use wikipedia, and extremely dumb ways. People over thirty who began to learn the internet when they has already learned common sense know how to use wikipedia, because they read everything with a discerning and critical eye (or at least, they should be). Kids these days read what the internet tells them and believe each word, because they grew up with the internet as sourced content, not bullshit someone shat out of their ass. I'm in academia, and we frequently discuss whether wikipedia is good or bad as a source. It can be great. Just be discerning, critical, and check the fucking sources. If it sounds like crap, it probably is. (Side note: I know there are smart kids and young 20-somethings. There are exceptions to every rule.)