I'm generally pretty pro-Wikipedia and tend to think a lot of the concerns (at least on the English version) are somewhat overblown, but citing it as a source on its own reliability is just a bit too much even for me. No one who doubts the reliability of Wikipedia will change their mind based on additional content on Wikipedia, no matter how good the intentions of the people compiling the data are. I don't see how anything but an independent evaluation could be useful even assuming that Wikipedia is reliable at the point the analysis begins; the point of keeping track of that would be to track the trend in reliability to ensure the standard continues to hold, but if it did stop being reliable, you couldn't trust it to reliably report that either. I think there's value in presenting a list of claims (e.g. "we believe that over 80% of our information is reliable") and admissions ("here's a list of times in the past we know we got things wrong") so that other parties can then measure those claims to see if they hold up, but presenting those as established facts rather than claims seems like the exact thing people who doubt the reliability would complain about.