Yes of course, in principle that is the case. In practice, it is another matter, especially if the author of the reference is adamant that it be preserved…

“Regarding the second point: Yes, not all material in RePEc is peer-reviewed, there is a substantial number of working papers. But seeing how frequently they are cited, it seems at least some are perceived to be of high quality.”

Yes, and I do not therefore necessarily agree with the policy by some Wikipedia editors who reject references to unpublished working papers from RePEc. I was simply stating that some follow this policy.

“And yes, you can self-publish a working paper, for example through MPRA.”

I did take advantage of this very welcome opportunity more than once :-)

Regarding the second point: Yes, not all material in RePEc is peer-reviewed, there is a substantial number of working papers. But seeing how frequently they are cited, it seems at least some are perceived to be of high quality. And yes, you can self-publish a working paper, for example through MPRA.

Well, that is, if one counts a citation to one’s own work as a citation, indeed…

I have noticed many spurious references to academic work on Wikipedia, i.e. links to work that is not the best in the field, is sub-par, too specialized or only tangentially related.

I would think those are instance of an author linking to their own work.

Note also that a lot of RePEc content is self-publishing, that is, “original research”, which is not to be used as reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISH#Self-published_sources