It's a balance.

• Primary sources are 100% more preferable.

  Why? Wiki could be wrong, though not overwhelmingly likely. Either someone there screwes up, or inserts their own opinion. Slytherincess can give many examples from HP by heart, I ran into a couple myself.

• Wiki as a source is 100% fine, when it explicitly clearly sources from primary material:

  "Foo did Bar, in episode 'Forgotten Plot Device #3' of 'Cancelled for being awsome' show. As evidenced by this quote:

  Insert quote

  Insert picture of Foo doing Bar

• Wiki as a source is ok, if it includes a general source, but no quote

• Wiki as a source is somewhat OK if it doesn't have a precise source, BUT you clearly state that "The wiki doesn't source this piece of info". Especially if you can confirm from your own memory that the Wiki is correct despite not having the primary source to quote from.

• Wiki is tolerable if it doesn't have a source, BUT you really should include the disclaimer that you can't find an exact source on the Wiki (I try to do that)

• Wiki becomes less OK if 100% of the answer is quoting unsouced Wiki. Not grounds for deletion or downvotes, but not really a very good answer, and I would prefer a sourced one to replace it.

  Why? Because, while Wiki can be wrong, it is not wrong all THAT often, so an answer quoting Wiki is infinitely preferable to no answer or idle speculation

It's a balance.

• Primary sources are 100% more preferable.

  Why? Wiki could be wrong, though not overwhelmingly likely. Either someone there screws up or inserts their own opinion. Slytherincess can give many examples from HP by heart, I ran into a couple myself.

• Wiki as a source is 100% fine, when it clearly and explicitly sources from primary material:

  "Foo did Bar, in episode 'Forgotten Plot Device #3' of 'Cancelled for being awsome' show. As evidenced by this quote:

  Insert quote

  Insert picture of Foo doing Bar

• Wiki as a source is ok, if it includes a general source, but no quote.

• Wiki as a source is somewhat OK if it doesn't have a precise source, BUT you clearly state that "The wiki doesn't source this piece of info". Especially if you can confirm from your own memory that the Wiki is correct despite not having the primary source to quote from.

• Wiki is tolerable if it doesn't have a source, BUT you really should include the disclaimer that you can't find an exact source on the Wiki (I try to do that).

• Wiki becomes less OK if 100% of the answer is quoting an unsourced Wiki. Not grounds for deletion or downvotes, but not really a very good answer, and I would prefer a sourced one to replace it.

  Why? Because, while a Wiki can be wrong, it is not wrong all THAT often, so an answer quoting a Wiki is infinitely preferable to no answer or idle speculation.

It's a balance.

• Primary sources are 100% more preferable.

  Why? Wiki could be wrong, though not overwhelmingly likely. Either someone there screwes up, or inserts their own opinion. Slytherincess can give many examples from HP by heart, I ran into a couple myself.

• Wiki as a source is 100% fine, when it explicitly clearly sources from primary material:

  "Foo did Bar, in episode 'Forgotten Plot Device #3' of 'Cancelled for being awsome' show. As evidenced by this quote:

  Insert quote

  Insert picture of Foo doing Bar

• Wiki as a source is ok, if it includes a general source, but no quote

• Wiki as a source is somewhat OK if it doesn't have a precise source, BUT you clearly state that "The wiki doesn't source this piece of info". Especially if you can confirm from your own memory that the Wiki is correct despite not having the primary source to quote from.

• Wiki is tolerable if it doesn't have a source, BUT you really should include the disclaimer that you can't find an exact source on the Wiki.

• Wiki becomes less OK if 100% of the answer is quoting unsouced Wiki. Not grounds for deletion or downvotes, but not really a very good answer, and I would prefer a sourced one to replace it.

  Why? Because, while Wiki can be wrong, it is not wrong all THAT often, so an answer quoting Wiki is infinitely preferable to no answer or idle speculation

It's a balance.

• Primary sources are 100% more preferable.

  Why? Wiki could be wrong, though not overwhelmingly likely. Either someone there screwes up, or inserts their own opinion. Slytherincess can give many examples from HP by heart, I ran into a couple myself.

• Wiki as a source is 100% fine, when it explicitly clearly sources from primary material:

  "Foo did Bar, in episode 'Forgotten Plot Device #3' of 'Cancelled for being awsome' show. As evidenced by this quote:

  Insert quote

  Insert picture of Foo doing Bar

• Wiki as a source is ok, if it includes a general source, but no quote

• Wiki as a source is somewhat OK if it doesn't have a precise source, BUT you clearly state that "The wiki doesn't source this piece of info". Especially if you can confirm from your own memory that the Wiki is correct despite not having the primary source to quote from.

• Wiki is tolerable if it doesn't have a source, BUT you really should include the disclaimer that you can't find an exact source on the Wiki (I try to do that)

• Wiki becomes less OK if 100% of the answer is quoting unsouced Wiki. Not grounds for deletion or downvotes, but not really a very good answer, and I would prefer a sourced one to replace it.

  Why? Because, while Wiki can be wrong, it is not wrong all THAT often, so an answer quoting Wiki is infinitely preferable to no answer or idle speculation