Wikipedia can actually be a reliable source because there are usually footnotes provided for the assertions and facts stated in the article that you can look up for yourself and determine how reliable the original/primary sources are. I would never cite to wikipedia itself for a paper I am writing, but I have found it useful for a basic breakdown of a subject and the sources provided in the footnotes are usually great for much more specific information (if I find the link provided to be a valid source). Anyway, I find that a lot more useful than blindly believing in the Italian Justice system (or any system). Maybe it's because I'm a cynic, but I don't automatically assume justice was served just because a jury decided one way. If all the Amanda Knox is guilty people maybe provided some more compelling reasons than calling Americans moronic and arrogant, then I'd be more willing to accept those theories, but I haven't really heard any compelling arguments from that side. Instead, all I see is anti-American bitterness or some people stretching to make small statements a valid point but the subtext is quite clear.
Anyway, I understand the sensitivity and I'm not here to make sweeping generalizations about the Italian legal system and about how flawed it is. I'm just interested in this specific case because I've never seen someone convicted, retried then found not guilty, then have that overturned and then found guilty again and now going through an appeals process.