Speaking of Wikipedia (a Ref Grunt moment)

Actual conversation with a patron Tuesday night (paraphrased):

Patron: I want a quick definition of this Islamic sect, but don't look on Wikipedia.
Me: You've already looked on Wikipedia and you want other sources, or...? (I suspected this was not the answer, but I figured I'd check)
Patron: It's not authoritative, it's just idiots (or words to that effect).
Me: Well...okay. (I agree that it's not authoritative, per se, but it is one among many possible sources. whatever. So I go to the reference stacks and grab a 10 year old encyclopedia of religion which is all I've got that covers this topic in print.)
Well, sir, I have 6 or 7 entries on your subject, let me skim through them. Is there something you're looking for in particular? (I know this patron - he NEVER asks for what he really wants on the first pass, no matter how hard you try to do a ref interview)
Patron: What does it say?
Me: It's like 20-30 pages of information. I could hold it for you and you could come in.
Patron: No! I just want a "quick definition".
Me: (in my head: well, that's what wikipedia is for!) So I give him a couple of key paragraphs on the basic outlines of this sect's beliefs, indicating that this barely scratches the surface. He finally reveals what part of it he wanted to know about (I won't bore you - he's a conspiracy theorist). As it happens, wikipedia has the most concise 'definition' on that aspect, taken from more current sources than the 10yo book in front of me. I cross-check it with both my book and a couple other sources and give it to him, making sure to note that wikipedia WAS one of my sources, but was cross-checked. (What? I was in a snarky mood.)

::sigh::