> Sorry, but that's incorrect. Wikipedia mostly uses secondary sources, rarely primary ones that makes it for the most part a tertiary source.

I'd like to see empirical analysis substantiating this claim. Not saying you're wrong, just saying I'd like some hard data.

Hmm, having said that, look at what I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_terti...

  “
  Wikipedia is not a primary source
      Wikipedia avoids describing topics that never have been described before — doing otherwise qualifies as performing original research. Unsourced eyewitness accounts or other unsourced information obtained from personal experience should not be added to articles, as this would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for the added information (see Wikipedia:Verifiability).
  Wikipedia is not a secondary source
      Wikipedia does not offer interpretations or analyses that deviate from previously published interpretations and analyses — doing otherwise qualifies as performing original research.
  Wikipedia is a tertiary source
      Wikipedia summarizes descriptions, interpretations and analyses that are found in secondary sources, or bases such summaries on tertiary sources. Wikipedia illustrates such summaries and descriptions with material that is as close as possible to the primary source(s) on the described topic.
  ”

> As for the rest of the comment: it's a free world. And if you want to save some time there are 'vote' buttons which allow you to express the same sentiment in a less nuanced way (though I appreciate the effort) which would allow you to start your day on time ;)

fair point :)