[simonw]

Read up on Wikipedia's "reliable source" policies.

Information on Wikipedia is meant to be backed up by a verifiable source, partly to prevent a situation where knowledge only makes it onto Wikipedia if enough of the editors agree that it should be true.

Molly White made a great video and write-up explaining this a few months ago: https://blog.mollywhite.net/become-a-wikipedian-transcript/#...

[s1k3s]

I know about that, but it's basically the same thing since reliable sources in the wikipedia terms are a set of sources that we collectively decide to trust. What's interesting about wikipedia sources is that it won't allow you to directly quote a person even though they are a well known trustworthy information source. Instead you must back up your statements through a 3rd party (usually media-related) entity. This is both good and bad, considering that journalists may not be the best at evaluating certain information, especially in the science or politics field.

[tux3]

>it won't allow you to directly quote a person even though they are a well known trustworthy information source

Little known fact: That is actually allowed in some limited situations, but only reluctantly, and with a lot of care.

For instance if someone is recognized as an established researcher in their field with publications in top academic journals and then they make a statement on their website about something they have expertise in, you can actually cite that if you have no better source! Even though it's a direct self-published quote.

[afh1]

... and Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Rightfully so. Open any politics-related article and you'll see why.