I don't even know what people use Wikipedia for so frequently that they're so reliant on it. I maybe use it a few times a week, at best.
Two reasons for me:
1) I am a curious person who used to read the *printed* encyclopedia for kicks, except it sucked because the information was at least a few years out of date and only covered a small selection of topics (mainly what you might call 'high-brow' topics). Connections between entries were only at the most basic level, as was the multiple coontextualization that is a basic tenet with Wikipedia (see disambiguation pages). It also had little other than text (and historical documents were never worth the extra space it took to reproduce them photographically, so they were always reproduced as text), and of course, no sound or moving images.
2) I don't have access to a library, any article bank, or anything else other than publicly accessible websites. Of those, Wikipedia is by far and away the one with the most 'juice' in terms of learning new stuff and satisfying the aforementioned endless curiosity about topics ranging from philosophical concepts and human and animal anatomy to bubblegum pop and obscure one-hit wonders.
So if you only use wikipedia 'a few times a week at best', you are probably either deadly dull with no interests beyond what can be fed by television, or you have the privilege of having more sources of information and can therefore afford to be picky.
Because in addition to being curious I am also (trying to be) tolerant and think the best of people, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and go for the latter until and unless you prove to be the former