To be fair, Wikipedia is often sourced, but not necessarily well sourced. A while back when I needed to provide a "source" for a fact I simply tweeted it and then cited the tweet.
Actually Twitter can be a much better source than an accredited newspaper, because in this case it would be coming directly from you, and you wouldn't need to worry that perhaps the source was being paraphrased, or the context wasn't what they intended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-p...
The general bias seems to be in favour of treating sources as acceptable, unless there are reasons not to; though that may be just a matter of enforcement.
I have to call bullshit on that. Wikipedia's notability criteria specifically excludes blogs and social media as acceptable sources, with the sole exception of being posts made by the source himself (i.e., Linus Thorvald's comments on Linux posted on the lkml)
Regardless of what the wikipedia guidelines might say, it happened.
It's the whole point of references in academic papers: "To know more, start here".