"Yeah, did you read that on Wikipedia?"

Yes, I did.

Just like I used to read things at the library in the 90's, and no-one would've thought to mock that. And one of the books I read was some Soviet scientists from the 50's describing how spiritual auras work in real life.

Although that was in the 00's I just didn't have the internet all the time while in the army.

Eh. It really depends on the topic. I am a Wikipedia addict and I would never tell anyone that Wikipedia should be used for anything beyond surface level familiarity. Ideally you start with Wikipedia then move on to better quality sources. The problem with Wikipedia isn't necessarily inaccuracy, but lack of information and bias. I'm not talking about right wing conspiracies saying Wikipedia is too liberal, but rather I am talking about things in history where a specific view is presented and alternate views are not. This is especially common in situations where modern scholars are questioning historically mainstream views. I suspect this is because the editors simply aren't aware of these developments and are accessing more available older sources, but it can bring in bias. This can also happen in science and engineering as well. Plus there is the classic Wikipedia problem where some random B list Marvel superhero or star wars extended universe side character has an extremely high quality Wikipedia page and a relatively important historical to figure has a very basic overview. Wikipedia is incredible and one of the greatest achievements of Humanity, but it's got some flaws and I don't think that it's wrong to tell students not to rely on Wikipedia. It's kind of like all the same issues with ChatGPT but way less severe and way more subtle.

And than there is the fake toaster inventor who only got found out nearly a decade later because the thought the joke got out of hand

No it generally makes sense to teach kids to not cite Wikipedia. Though it is consistently checked and updated you can look at the wiki link and drama for the Israeli genocide just to see a perfect example of why it shouldn't be cited.

The great part of wikipedia is going to their actual resources ans reading and understanding those. What you were supposed to learn was HOW to research things and come to your own conclusions, not just how to cite information.

~~A problem with Wikipedia is that experts are not allowed to contribute to their areas of expertise because they're "biased"~~ (see edit below). I know a professor at a top university who used to spend his free time editing Wikipedia outside of his specific area but in his broad area of expertise as a method of disseminating science knowledge to the public. When the higher-up Wikipedia editors found out who he was, they banned his account and IP from editing.

~~Having the lay public write articles works when expertise isn't required to understand something, but~~ much of Wikipedia around science is slightly inaccurate at best. (This is still true, probably owing to the neutral point of view rule [giving weight to fringe ideas as a result] or the secondary source prioritization over primary sources.)

Edit: current Wikipedia editing rules and guidelines would not support this ban, so things appear to have changed. Wikipedia still recommends against primary sources as authoritative sources of information (recommending secondary sources instead), which is not great. But, they explicitly now welcome subject matter experts as editors.

Wikipedia is like the War Thunder forums on steriods minus the who leaking classified information.

Wikipedia may be flawed, it's because people are flawed. That's why the scientific method and editors exist. That does not only apply to Wikipedia, but science in general. Because I've seen some finely aged rubbish with an exquisitely greasy texture in the science community. IMHO.