It's a good practice not to link to wikipedia.org when a more in-depth or specific third-party source is available, or if the topic is a well known one (too generic). But that leaves a lot of Wikipedia pages on more obscure topics, and those make fine HN submissions, as long as the topic is of intellectual interest and not particularly correlated with other things. And as long as we don't overdo it.
A while ago, I submitted a raw Wiki link to "Ligne Claire", a drawing style adopted by Hergé of "Adventures of Tintin" fame. That made it to #1 and remained for a few hours. It is not very unusual.
I'm sure that's true, but also there's a lot of very interesting HN-relevant stuff on Wikipedia, and it's perfectly reasonable to share it when you find something pithy.
I've certainly done it and contrariwise have often enjoyed Wikipedia articles (including this one) from other users.
Apropos of which I wish I'd had Wikipedia when I was a kid - I recall being utterly baffled by Brittanica's "explanation" of the term "parsec" and only much later reading a definition that put it in the context of how stellar distances were actually resolved.
Edit: Looking at swibbler's submission history, they're clearly not a karma farmer btw.
