There's a bit of a sliding scale depending on the available sources. For a lot of contemporary stuff, newspaper articles are cited as sources, because there's n

There's a bit of a sliding scale depending on the available sources. For a lot of contemporary stuff, newspaper articles are cited as sources, because there's not much better available. And newspaper articles don't always cite their sources well, which makes it a bit hard to know where they got their information. When better sources are available, they're preferred. For example, an article on WW2 should not cite random newspapers, but should substantiate any significant claims with a citation to a respectable history book or journal article, because there are enough of them available that there's no excuse for citing less-reliable sources. If a claim about WW2 can only be found in Wired, it probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia. There are some people who'd prefer applying that more broadly: if a claim can only be found in Wired (or any other newspaper/magazine) Wikipedia should not include it. This, however, would cause a whole different kind of controversy: when material is removed or articles are deleted due to lack of good-enough sources, some people get very angry and start attacking "deletionism". So there's a bit of an in-flux balance between only covering a relatively narrow range of impeccably-sourced topics, versus covering anything at all cited to any source at all.