Yeah but because Wikipedia articles, to an extent, ephemeral it is good practise to use the sources at the bottom of the article as your source, rather than the Wikipedia article itself. It makes finding the origin of the information easier.
If it is something more permanent like a paper or a published article, then that doesn’t suffer from the same issues
deleted by creator
We’re not doing a research paper. We’re commenting on a internet post. Calm down.
But wikipedia has sources on the bottom of an article so you can verify things?
Yeah but because Wikipedia articles, to an extent, ephemeral it is good practise to use the sources at the bottom of the article as your source, rather than the Wikipedia article itself. It makes finding the origin of the information easier.
If it is something more permanent like a paper or a published article, then that doesn’t suffer from the same issues
Found my English teacher
You can argue the veracity of looking the user count of the platforms on wikipedia, but it is a source.