This is the official Wikimedia Foundation status page for the whole of Wikipedia, so it's a reliable primary source.

Actually, usage of primary sources is kinda complicated [0], generally Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...

▲

jkaplowitz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, but the purpose of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia (a tertiary source) is to relatively neutrally summarize the consensus of those who spend the time and effort to analyze and interpret the primary sources (and thus produce secondary sources), or if necessary to cite other tertiary summaries of those.

In a discussion forum like HN, pointing to primary sources is the most reliable input to the other readers' research on/synthesis of their own secondary interpretation of what may be going on. Pointing to other secondary interpretations/analyses is also useful, but not without including the primary source so that others can - with apologies to the phrase currently misused by the US right wing - truly do their own research.

	▲	Uhhrrr 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you spend any time on Wikipedia, you'll find that secondary sources from an existing list are always preferred. The mandate from the link in GP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) extends, or at least is interpreted to mean to extend to, actively punishing editors who attempt to analyze or interpret primary sources. My original post was a joke about this.