By my interpretation of what would seem to be the relevant Wikipedia's policies, Examiner.com would be a perfectly reliable source for Wikipedia. Self-published material includes blogs and personal websites. To throw in a website where its writers are prescreened, and whose owner has a fiduciary obligation not to allow inflammatory, slanderous or pornographic content into the same category as blogs would require a liberal stretching of the definition.
But of course my interpretation of Wikipedia policy is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia's god-kings, since for them the validity of policy interpretation depends exclusively on who is doing the interpreting, not on whether they might actually have a valid point.
Also consider what Wikipedia's screening process is: as long as you're not using the same IP address as a banned user, you can sign up for Wikipedia. Pedophiles and registered sex offenders are welcome in Wikipedia, but not on Examiner.com.