>>13606180This is actually half right. Wikipedia is, by policy, constrained to phrase everything in terms of existing sources which (and this part is key) are DEEMED* to be reasonable, reputable, etc. However, there's nothing stopping you from simply citing an actual scientific article itself, to the exclusion of some bullshit pop-sci article, as long as the real article establishes the claim or language being made.
*I once made an edit on some topic having to do wtih Adam Smith, and I was either citing Wealth of Nations as reproduced on some website, or else one of the American founding documents as faithfully reproduced on such-and-such cite. When I went to publish it the thing complained about the website itself (apparently, conservative-leaning) which had been flagged as "questionable" and not to be used as a reputable source. Kikes, kikes, kikes all the way down...
