You could also see if it would be good as a source for citations in the relevant wikipedia articles, but that's a whole project in itself probably.
I'm hesitant to go adding my site as a citation - it's a good idea but it just seems a bit black-hat for me. Hopefully it's something that might happen organically though.
I mentioned it because your site seems like a genuinely good source that WP would be happy to use, making it a win-win. Don't try and use wikipedia for pagerank boys and girls.
But I'm basing that only rumour and supposition so certainly don't take it as truth.
I have no data of my own to support the above. Theory says that "nofollow" will not help is SEO.
Why though? I think the manual "semantic web markup" is a failed promise, more than anything.
The idea was flawed from the start for general web use (for one, you cannot trust content providers to add relevant semantic info, either because it's in their interest NOT to do so --e.g SEO spam--, or because they are not competent or lazy). Plus, the tools never materialised.
It's another case of "worse is better".