Though I'm not the AC that which you're responding to, I feel you're berating his use of Wikipedia when what you should be directing your conversation at is his point of view.
Legal argument aside, he used Wikipedia for what it's very good for: citing factual or directly inferred information, not information up for thats typically debatable. And the reason Wikipedia is good for that is because the users (are supposed to) cite their information.
In this case, his one sentence quote is backed up by citing four separate court cases.
If you don't like his argument based off of that information, that's fine. But to deride him for using Wikipedia, and then imply his resulting argument is faulty because no good can come of Wikipedia is frankly BS. Note: I'm referring to your opening and closing statements, not when you actually get to the issues at hand.
I apologize for venting my Wikihate frustrations towards you specifically, but I finally have time to reply this one of many, I feel, unwarranted assaults against a very useful source of information.
Wikipedia, like all things on the internet must be taken with a grain of salt, but unlike almost all other things on the internet, at least Wikipedia tells the user on what the information is based.