I often cite Wikipedia in casual conversation. Occasionally, someone will scoff at me for doing so, as though the mere act invalidates my entire position. This is frustrating for two reasons:
First, whether I am right or wrong is less important than that I show the other person where I got my information. If I can show a person where I got my information, he can falsify or verify my claims based on knowledge we both possess. This is akin to the pre-Common Core insistence on "Showing your work" in mathematics. A person may accidentally use an incorrect method to arrive at the correct answer, but that is unlikely to work the next time. Being able to think clearly is much more important than being right.
Second, when I cite the aforementioned "free encyclopedia", I am citing it for a very specific reason. I expect any information on Wikipedia is going to be completely sterilized, sanitized, pasteurized, controlled, and "fact-checked". I expect my conversation partner to know this. Wikipedia is entirely a "mainstream" or "acceptable" source with all the dubious credibility of a Snopes.com. I frankly find it hard to believe that an adult could fail to recognize that, but of course I don't expect the reader to take my word for it. Go to Wikipedia and read the entries on the JFK assassination, 9/11, chemtrails, or vaccines. Hell, look which website comes up at the top of the page if you type "mmr autism" into YouTube's search bar!
As an additional exercise, I recommend clicking the "Talk" button at the top left corner of any of those articles. Few readers seem to realize it exists, but that is where Wikipedia editors discuss and propose changes to the articles. It can be very enlightening to see which bits of information the editors deem acceptable. (Oh, and lest the reader get the mistaken notion that Wikipedia was ever about uncensored information, here's a quote from the article on its founder, Jimmy Wales: "Wales has said that he was initially so worried about the concept of open editing, where anyone can edit the encyclopedia, that he would awaken during the night and monitor what was being added.")
To reiterate, Wikipedia, while far from trustworthy, is vastly farther from being a purveyor of the kinds of "conspiracy theories" I find myself discussing with "normies". The point in citing it is to demonstrate something along the lines of, "This is what we're allowed to know about", or, "This is what can no longer be denied".
Oh, and the actual article I was citing in my conversation was one stating that until 1977, the United States' nuclear missile launch codes were all set at 00000000. I see it's now been edited to reflect that the USAF issued a statement denying those claims in 2014. The original claim was made by Bruce Blair, a "nuclear security expert" and former "Minuteman ICBM launch control officer" in 2004. In 2005 cryptographer Steven Bellovin confirmed (slide 33) this claim, but he is not mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.
