robzilla - 1:23 pm on Feb 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

Clearly, the trick would be not to make it look conspicuously like a trick, so the citation and the research data would have to fit your site like a glove. This will only work for a select number of (authorative) sites, and even those that succeed for a while might attract the envy of competitors, but with the audience that Wikipedia attracts even a temporary link is likely to be beneficial (regardless of whether or not link juice flows somehow).

As an experiment, this is certainly interesting, but I'm not sure whether it would always be worth the trouble of creating the information for the citation; so please do post your results, wheel, if you can. It's certainly another creative idea, but perhaps it [filling up gaps on other people's websites by creating the data to back up their unsupported claims] is more likely to work on pages with information similar to Wikipedia's but which are edited only by a single person or organization. These may not outrank you in the search results, but their links might actually be more valuable.

Added: Wouldn't it make sense for search engines to slowly crank up the value of a link on Wikipedia based on the time it is allowed to remain there? After all, the frequency with which Wikipedia articles are reviewed is relatively high (certainly higher than the pages at DMOZ or the Yahoo! Directory) and by more editors, too, so a steady link to your site ought, I believe, to be quite valuable. Whether it actually is, I have no idea.