Wikipedia vs. Textbook: The Ultimate Showdown

One of the most prominent sticking points in high-tech education so far, is Wikipedia. Is it reliable, especially when compared to textbooks? Is one better than the other? More efficient for teaching? Let's look at a little case study, looking at Buddhism in both Wikipedia and the text book. What did we find? For one, both Wikipedia and the text book had the same information, but that's not to say they are the same at all.
The book, although it broached all the major concepts and important facts, was concise to say the least. The Wikipedia page included background, detailed facts about beliefs held by Buddhists, the history, origin and the goals of Buddhism. In short, the book provides facts about Buddhism in context to historical development, which may be useful for a test. Wikipedia, on the other hand, provides detailed information and perspective from the present, which is incredibly useful in building opinions and connections to the world we live in today.
Now, does one work better or teach better than the other? I don't think so. I think both are good sources of information and perspective, but in different contexts and for different reasons. Because of this, I don't think their usefulness in the classroom and be compared and one placed above the other. Personally, I don't carry a preference one way or the other about which I would rather use. I think they are both education and beneficial to understand the rapidly changing world that we live in.
The bottom line is, I don't really think a class based on either one or the other is really the way to go, I think using both together to compare and contrast a historical aspect's effect on history and its effect on the present is the best way to learn about and interact with the knowledge presented to us.