You know, the only Wikipedia source in the article is to a definition of a term. How is that "lazy, uneducated, and just plain lame"?

What would be the difference if the author quoted the exact same definition from some other source? It's not like the definition of "Pseudorandomness" is fluid and therefore changing all the time.

There's nothing wrong with using it as a source for a definition to a term. It gives you more description than you would get by referencing a dictionary instead. Also, it doesn't look like the author based the entire article on one Wikipedia entry, since he points to various different sources.

I think you're being too dismissive about the value of Wikipedia in such circumstances and one shouldn't immediately consider someone lazy or uneducated if they include it for added information within an article.