Wikipedia's credibility/realiable source rules in general are problematic to be honest. Not just for the secondary source thing mentioned, but because Wikipedia

Wikipedia's credibility/realiable source rules in general are problematic to be honest. Not just for the secondary source thing mentioned, but because Wikipedia's standards for such are disconnected from how things work in the internet era. Their idea about a credible source seems to mostly be 'mainstream media publication with paid staff going by real names/with photos next to their names and a fancy layout'. But many reliable sources now are not like that. The internet has made it so people don't need to go through middlemen to publish any more, and in a lot of cases (especially more niche ones), credible sites can be solo affairs by enthusiasts and professors without much in the way of obvious visual design or 'professionalism'. If Wikipedia was a bit more up to date, they'd recognise that, and base credibility more on the reputation of the source rather than whether their author was paid to create it or if it comes to from CNN or the New York Times. They'd also look at whether other sources recognise it as a source. If half the gaming or film world consider Bob's blog an accurate source, that probably means more than whether Bob is paid $30,000 a year by Empire to write about films. Wiki's model would have been fine in the world of gatekeepers and centralised media, but kinda falls apart in a world where credibility is earned rather than given by random branding prestige.