QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 25th January 2012, 3:46pm)
I hate to sound like I'm supporting thekohser's relentless Wikipedia Review hype, but it really isn't like WP except superficially. No student would trust what they found on Wikipedia Review the way they would trust what they found on WP. Wikipedia Review isn't the number one search result for almost any single word term you type into Google.
My point was rather that even in situations where the substance is different [if the MWB article on, say, Consumer economy, is good enough that they should be able to cite it], the superficial resemblance will mean that teachers will still reject it by association.
Really the worst problem I've heard of with this is the "catch-22" aspect - citing [say] Wikipedia's sources without citing Wikipedia itself is seen as a form of plagiarism (since you didn't find those sources yourself), but citing Wikipedia gets them a bad grade even if they didn't actually rely on it for the information.