QUICK: Wikipedia and Facts

I hadn't heard the vicious circle argument against Wikipedia until this week. It makes a better case against the site as a sound source of information than most naysayers do (citation needed). It revolves around the idea that use of the service as a source has elevated to the point where mainstream media might make claims based on it. Being already "trusted" sources, these outlets don't tend to need citations to state what they present as fact and be believed, but eventually their stating of the "fact" ends up back on Wikipedia as a citation for exactly the piece of information that was used by them uncited to begin with. Now cited it will be increasingly trusted and repeated. The problem is, it was never true. That said, both you and I have learnt a lot from Wikipedia articles, and we both know a lot of it is correct. I've always found this argument a tough one in which to pick a side, and now i'm more unsure than ever.