I know god damn it. I was being an asshole on purpose.

Oh really? Got a source for that?

Well, the best sources are primary. Secondary sources are generally used to expand on points or analysis that comes from a primary source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and should really only be used to be directed to the other two types. It's nice for a quick glance, but it shouldn't be used to offer a full or even large picture on anything. And to be fair, all sources are somewhat unreliable. Even our own testimony and what we witness is somewhat askew (I don't I ever used that word before) from the truth. I get your point. I use wikipedia for generic, broad, and unspecific answers time to time. It's nice that are indeed some constraints on Wikipedia for editing, but there is still cause for concern. I mean, I just edited a random page while writing this just to make sure I could. Like I said, I know there are constraints, but the fact that the potential exists for an article to be edited puts further concern on its reliability. That being said, whether or not editing was a point of concern, the fact that Wikipedia is a tertiary source makes it only useful for reference to find sources to make a point, not as much to directly make a point upon viewing. Not gonna say I'm not guilty in doing that time to time, but I also remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; Wikipedia isn't that.