<human>: There is more to it than the title, but I wanted to get you in here all pissed and ready for some discourse. 

Roommate and I are having a discussion about why Universities don't allow Wikipedia as a source, despite its frequent editing and citation requirements. We've looked at academic sources on the matter and there isn't really a "THIS IS THE ANSWER" type statement that satisfies our discussion.
We've discussed the following:
*A book that prints an error is much harder to change than a Wikipedia article.
*However, books are typically edited, meaning less errors fall through.
*Wikipedia articles can be changed by anyone.
*Wikipedia has a high rate of error catching. (One peer-reviewed article said something like 42% of the time the catch is virtually immediate. However, there are still hundreds of millions of "damaged views")

What we found is that there is an abundance of research on the reliability of Wikipedia, but it is almost split 50/50 on whether or not it is acceptable.

However, we find much less when we try to search for the credibility of books.

Can you condense the text into a few key points?
<bot>: Books are impossible to change but often edited by (an) informed peer(s). Wikipedia is easily changed but peer review can be suspect.