From an administrator's perspective, I don't understand the objection to Wikipedia. Granted, it is not guaranteed to be 100% correct. But what is? Even peer reviewed scientific journals contain errors.
If we disallow wiki, don't we have to also disallow all newpaper and on-line media reports? Wouldn't we have to disallow the pdf file for the Dover ID decision, since that was hosted on a media site rather than the court's own site?
If somebody makes a reference to wiki, that can still be challenged by better evidence. If someone makes a reference to a peer reviewed article, that can also be challenged by reference to newer better results.
If we are going to have a debate with broad participation, then I think we should not be too restrictive in what is allowed as reference material. In most cases, it is up to the debaters to challenge particular references.