The reason Wikipedia can't be cited isn't because it's untrustworthy or false.
The reasons Wikipedia can't be cited is because it's editable and anonymous.
To cite something, it needs to be permanent and, in most cases, openly authored.
Openly authored, because the author's professional reputation and credentials are important information for the reader(s) to judge the trustworthiness of the source.
(If someone writes sixty papers and then is busted for making shit up, that sheds important light on the potential truth-value of everything attributed to them.)
Permanent, because the cited work has to stay on the record as is for people to be able to reference the citation.
(If you read a paper that cites Dr. Parsnip Jones as saying one thing in his 1863 treatise, and it uses him to back up its point, and you go read that 1863 treatise and it turns out he said the opposite, you've just uncovered a massive flaw in the paper that can call its conclusions into question, along with that of any derivative work.)
Wikipedia is edited by anonymous users and the previous versions are removed. That means if you use it, and somebody changes it, your source no longer says what it used to say when you cited it, and therefore is invalid.
If you cite the source Wikipedia uses, on the other hand, you'll be using a permanent, unchangeable source, which will still say what you're claiming it said, and it will still be a valid source.
snowghoul
kaledo-art
pixelskylines
jacobvanloon
discoholicmusic
dededos
annaxmalina
vaporwave
