If you've ever seen how topics are treated in a Wikipedia discussion thread you'd feel like the whole website has zero credibility. There's a reason academics don't let you use it.
The reason is that it is not a direct source of course because the authors cannot be validated. Never met a college professor that said don’t use Wikipedia (if anything it was encouraged) as long as you’re pulling from the citations. I had plenty of high school teachers talk about how awful it is though and I think it was because they just didn’t understand it
I'll take this a step further to say that my graduate algorithms professor assigned Wikipedia articles as reading. The parent blanket statements are just that: overgeneralizations.
I had a similar experience. My cryptography professor regularly linked to Wikipedia articles in his assignments as the reading to go with the assignment. Honestly, the last time I had a teacher really say something against using Wikipedia was in high school.
My undergrad physics professors didn't exactly assign wikipedia articles, but they did tell us that some articles were useful resources for understanding certain topics. In my experience, the more technical a topic, the more likely the wikipedia article is to be reliable. Probably because there isn't much incentive for someone who isn't an expert to edit it.