According to the online-discussion it is a fact, the most universities and libraries distrust Wikipedia. They recommend their student not to cite the encyclopedia and they are also prohibit, that students or professors edit in the Wikipedia. But what is the reason behind this distance?
At first, it is has nothing to do with the content or the quality. The academic quality of Wikipedia is very high, and the encyclopedia draws a clear distinction between science and pseudo-science. That means, if somebody is written in the Wikipedia it is true from a scientific standpoint. It seems, that the mistrust to Wikipedia has nothing to do with the content itself, but is more a social situation. Usually, Wikipedia isn't working on a personal basis, but on a quality base, that means, if an anonymous author is editing an article and the edit makes sense, it will become part of Wikipedia. And this is the opposite to classical academia. Another difference is, that publication in classical science works with grants and huge amount of money, while Wikipedia is financially independent. That means, there is not plan behind the website, instead it is chaotic.
Like I mentioned in the beginning it is a fact, that most universities are not familiar with Wikipedia and they are not interested in become a friend. About the fact itself, we can't debate, but we can question if this makes sense. If the aim is to increase the amount of knowledge, and if the aim is to increase the quality, then the wikipedia model makes sense. It is the most successful example for open science, there is not better alternative available. Instead we must ask, if the other side who is criticizing the website is perhaps wrong? I mean, if a professor is telling his student to not cite Wikipedia in their homework and not contribute to Wikipedia then the professor is perhaps wrong. He lives in a world, in which Academia is equal to paywalled access and to restrict the flow of information. Even this behavior may be common in certain areas of society it is not right choice for future development.
Let us imagine possible alternatives to citing Wikipedia, contributing to open source knowledge and bringing Open Science forward. The alternative is given by the past. It is the way, science was organized the last 2000 years and it doesn't worked. That means, restricting the number of person who are able to read a book is the standard model which was used the last hundred years. It is a role model which makes no sense.
Wikipedia was not invented because it is the next logical step for the universities and the libraries, Wikipedia was invented as the opposite to the former science workflow. Wikipedia is criticized by the same reason, like the Gutenberg printing press was criticized by the church, because the danger is high, that it will change the world. Sometimes there are some conspiracy theories out there which postulate that Wikipedia is some kind of top down project which is lead by wise universities professors who want to monopolize scientific knowledge. The opposite is true. Most contributors to Wikipedia have a non-academic background, they come from commercial book publishers, gaming industry, amateur scientists and other crackpots. I would guess that the number of Wikipedia authors who are in their main employment a professor at a university are very small (smaller then 1%). That means, the social environment of Wikipedia and classical universities is different. It is attractive for a different type of people. Wikipedia is some kind of disruptive project, which has the aim to destroy something, while classical universities and libraries want to protect the past and criticizing any kind of technology.
The main reason, why the reputation of Wikipedia in Academia is low has to do with the fear of the people. Universities have seen what Wikipedia has done with classical encyclopedia like Brockhaus and the Britannica and they are scared that the same development will take place with their nice libraries, printed journals and seminars. If the student are able to inform themself from an independent source, the professor is in the difficult situation to explain himself. If a student googled during the lecture the topic in Wikipedia and has asked a question to the professor it is very likely that he will fail to answer it. That is the reason why Wikipedia isn't tolerated in the university.
Like I mentioned above, this makes absolutely no sense, because Wikipedia is one of the richest and accurate source of information available. It is easier to understand and cheaper to access then any other academic resource. Otherwise it is not uncommon that a reaction to new technology makes not sense. Because the idea is not, to talk about Wikipedia and explain the pros and cons, the idea of the neoluddism movement is to resist against technology. And that is always irrational.