As usual wiki gives references to the classifications of types but summarizes it more succinctly than the original sources.
Wikipedia has also been tested numerous times and found to be as accurate, or more so, than most well respected sources of information.
https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
There's no practical reason not to quote wikipedia. It gives as much weighting as quoting anything else and is generally more convenient.
It's jut as possible to cite wrong MIT, cambridge, or britannica papers as it is to cite wrong wikipedia info. From a purely statistical standpoint, a citation from wikipedia has the same chance as being correct as any other paper so should be treated as such
For details into accuracy of wikipedia see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
you might note that most other sources (eg, published papers) have few studies into their accuracy so it's difficult to tell which journals are accurate or not, whilst wikipedias accuracy is subject to analysis routinely
A citation of wikipedia is statistically (and also empirically proven to be) strongly more convincing argument of correctness than citing some other random **** on the internet.
If wikipedia says something is so, more than 95/100 times wikipedia is right. So unless you're in the lucky 1%, you're probably wrong.