Team AA concerned group of university professors want to outlaw the use of Wikipedia as a source of information for academic papers. The ease with which a Wikipedia entry can be changed prevents it from being a reliable source of information. Anyone, not just an expert on a topic, can and does change a Wikipedia entry to whatever he or she wants it to say. In one case, a person changed the entry about himself to say that he was a Nobel prize winner and the entry went uncorrected for a long period after that. Furthermore, the fact that an entry can change so easily means that a direct quote that is correct today may not be by the time the quote is read.
Team BA concerned group of university students object to outlawing the use of Wikipedia as a source of information for academic papers. Who is to say that an entry, written by a paid expert, in a regular encyclopedia is correct? There is a review process to help ensure correctness. The Wikipedia process is really the same as that of a normal encyclopedia. In each case, an entry is reviewed and modified by reviewers until it stabilizes. The differences between Wikipedia and a normal encyclopedia is the speed with which the review and modifications happen and the fact that in the former case, no one is paid for his or her contributions. Wikipedia's speed is an advantage; for entries on very recent phenomena, there are no entries in any normal expert-written and expert-reviewed encyclopedias. Therefore, Wikipedia needs to be available as one possible source.