It could be an issue, yes, but I have a feeling there's not much we (or perhaps anybody in this situation) can do or should do beyond striving to offer the best services possible. Which we should really be doing, anyway. Readers should be critical of what they read and whom they trust. There are cues we can give to draw attention to specific issues -- citation-needed templates, and the like.
I believe there's been some discussion in press circles about using Wikipedia as a source, whether tacitly or not. It does seem to be useful as a "universal backgrounder" (forget who said that), but I hope people don't go relying on us exclusively.
Most definitions of "authoritativeness" I'm aware of seem circular, at least at some level. A source might be considered authoritative if other sources or people consider it to be so, by linking or citing it. In that context, I just take the links as a sign people find us useful, and that's a good sign from my seat.
-Luna