Q:

Should credence be given to Wikipedia links or should we encourage more authoritative linking?

There are several SE sites that downplay the value of Wikipedia entries for many reasons. Most of the time if the information in the Wikipedia link is true or relevant there is usually another site or reference with greater authority that will say the same thing.
Since much of genealogy is about finding credible evidence and being able to back up that evidence, should we hold to a similar standard of authority for the links and evidence provided on genealogy.SE?
At present simpler issues like generational titles and double dates come to mind, but these issues could become more complex or nuanced as the site matures.
Edit: (Other SE sites have tackled this problem before, and Genealogy.SE might benefit from what they've concluded.)

A:

Sources are sources - some are primary, some are secondary, and some are questionable. Wikipedia is by definition not a primary source. Depending on entry itself, it might be secondary or it might be questionable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Brewster_%28Mayflower_passenger%29 seems to be a well written, well researched article so I think it would be very appropriate to include it as a secondary source. 
Wikipedia is also useful for references to background information (eg the Brewster link above) and for noting 'citing' references. Eg the Brewster article has references of it's own. Without having the primary reference you can only reference that wikipedia article 'cites' the 5 references it gives for the fact that William Brewster married Mary Wentworth.
In one sense Wikipedia is no different than werelate.org, myheritage.com, americanancestors.org, and ancestry.com in the sense that it provides access to information others provided. The difference comes with respect to the actual information provided and the quality of that information with respect to original sources.

A:

I think we should just let people source whatever they want and not police it. It's up to them what they think is best.
I've never seen this as a problem on, say, Stack Overflow.

