>

That’s because everyone just cites the sources Wikipedia cited
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >

nobody references Wikipedia because heavily instructed not to >

If only we'd be allowed >

LPT: Use Wikipedia and then scroll to the bottom of the article and cite the same sources they do. >

Everybody uses Wikipedia, the same way everybody uses a search engine or Google scholar. Its is a tool, that helps you find primary sources for your research. Tools are not referenced in your source list. 
Every Wikipedia article has a source list. Those are the ones you should use in your research, not Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia summarises things, but does not add anything new to a topic.
Hope that helps :) >

Why don't people reference it the same way as some summarizing studies? For example, systematic literature reviews. Is it because the articles in Wikipedia can be created by anyone, which is worse than highly credible scientists associated with some prestigious universities? >

I'll have to draw a blank on that one. Summarising studies is not something I've seen used at my faculty, but it is definitely possible that such sources can add value to research in other fields. >

My teachers at school and profs at University always say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Although it has less mistakes than famous encyclopedias. >

Just use Wikipedia and then cite the sources that Wikipedia cites >

That is one of the best advices for any research.
It not only a great way to find new, important, famous papers... While doing that, you are also verifying if Wikipedia's content is actually a reliable source or not...
Which is the basis of any research. Looking up their sources to get more references and have a broader understanding. >

It makes sense though since any entry can be changed. But the nice part is they do the references for you. >

I just use mybib honestly, easy copy paste most of the time, especially when using latex >

Wikipedia isn't a source anymore than the Encyclopedia was a "source."
"Source" in the context of research doesn't mean "where you got it from." It refers to the source, or the origin of that fact you are are presenting to be true and accurate.
Wikipedia (and the old school Encyclopedia) is a collection of sources. It isn't one itself, never has been, and never should be.
It's absolutely not about accuracy. It's about acknowledging the origin of the information.
As an example, if I am writing a paper about the USA, I might look to Wikipedia to find out the current population is X million people. 
Is that number in Wikipedia correct? Probably, at least as far as such a thing can be calculated accurately.
Did "Wikipedia" go out and count and survey every city in the USA to come up with that number? No. They did not. That number probably comes from the US Census -- THAT is your source for that fact. With any luck the Wikipedia article references that source.
If Wikipedia doesn't reference a source for each fact presented as true? Well, that's not a very well written entry then, and you should look further. >

The Wikipedia passage that says X million people population would almost certainly have a source referenced.  That source reference can be followed and gives you the ability to confirm it as a reliable source.
That’s what Wikipedia is:  an article consisting mostly of a collection of facts from cited sources.  The citations and sources are conveniently gathered for you. >

Yeah, it's like Wikipedia is the unsung hero of research papers - it's always there but never gets the credit that it deserves! >

It’s not the hard. You look at Wikipedia references and refer to those rather than Wikipedia itself >

Still Wikipedia being is where we find and read it >

Sources and references are not synonymous >

Wikipedia itself isn't a source, but the references that Wikipedia cites are sources. >

That is definitely ironic! It's like we are using a source but not giving it proper credit. It's important to remember that Wikipedia can be a great starting point for research, but it should not be the only source used and it should always be cited when referenced. >

If the wiki article is up to scratch it will provide scources for its information, thats what you follow up on and source, not wiki. >

Cause Wikipedia isnt the main source
You can find the original source/article at the end of the Wikipedia page