A general remark on the use of Wikipedia: although it's sometimes necessary to corroborate from a second source information obtained from Wikipedia, I am not against using it, first because it often has more complete references than other sources. Christian Vandendorpe's March lecture on Wikipedia also loosened up my stance.

That said, the inherent instability of Wikipedia does make me queasy. In deciding whether or not to use it, either as the exclusive source for a reference or as one of two or three, is context. The main thing I'm going to be checking as I go through the references is their relevance to the contexts in which they are used in our anthology. Fortunately, the ability we now have to link immediately to the texts allows us to be aware of the information we need. For example, we can't in a reference to Hercules include every myth associated with him, so we must choose our commentary based on the context(s) in which we're working. Often, Wikipedia provides relevant detail that may be difficult to find elsewhere. When it works well, please go ahead and cite Wikipedia.