I tend to find that the majority of my colleagues (and students) are influenced by media reports of Wikipedia forgeries and horrors and will not be swayed by the data (including mine) which says that Wikipedia is at least as accurate as most peer reviewed sources.
Students are particularly concerned that the peer review aspect of Wikipedia is carried out by people who are "not qualified" in their opinions (err, so I'm not qualified I guess).
Other colleagues have expressed the view that using wikipedia for student assessment in the way that I do is problematic because "next year they won't have anything to write about" - i.e. they foresee the end of knowledge approaching (I don't)!
The problem I have with askdrwiki is the compartmentalization of knowledge.
At the UK Blackboard users conference last December, it seemed that every Staff Development type in the UK had … started their own staff development wiki … to which one or two people had contributed (no institutional brownie points), before the project had, well not died exactly, just tailed off … after wasting significant amounts of staff time.
So my problem with askdrwiki is: what's wrong with Wikipedia? Compartmentalization of knowledge among limited user communities is a good way to ensure these projects, well, not fail, just get ignored. Sure, Wikipedia has it problems, but IMO, that means the onus is on us to get in there and fix them
Now where are my institutional brownie points for doing that?