4 ms·

Even during my masters I have always felt that it was not done or at least questionable to cite wikipedia. However, wikipedia is often an excellent source for a

Even during my masters I have always felt that it was not done or at least questionable to cite wikipedia. However, wikipedia is often an excellent source for a first read on a new topic. The next step should then be to read wikipedia's sources, and slowly expand your view on the subject. However, sometimes it happens that you read first about a topic on wikipedia, and worked something out on the information you found there, before you had time to consult wikipedia's sources. In this case you definitely should cite wikipedia.

aleksei 9y ago
> However, sometimes it happens that you read first about a topic on wikipedia, and worked something out on the information you found there, before you had time to consult wikipedia's sources. In this case you definitely should cite wikipedia. I was advised to always cite the primary source, even if I learnt of something in a secondary source, eg. lit review or Wikipedia. The reason being that if the reader wants to follow up on it, it's the quickest path. I'd say it's also just good practice to credit the original authors for their work. Citing Wikipedia also puts the reader in the uncomfortable position of either taking your word for something, or having to go through Wikipedia's sources themselves to verify something.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > Citing Wikipedia also puts the reader in the uncomfortable position of either taking your word for something, or having to go through Wikipedia's sources themselves to verify something. How does this differ from citing anything else?
  - ufo 9y ago
    The problem is that Wikipedia is a secondary source. If I cite wikipedia you need to go through the reference list in the end of the article to find the primary source for the fact that I cited. If I had instead cited that source directly you wouldn't need to go through this extra step.
    - thaumasiotes 9y ago
      Yes you would. Why would you trust the source Wikipedia cites more than you trust Wikipedia? It's not a primary source either; those are very rare. https://www5.in.tum.de/~huckle/Sutton_Spinach_Iron_and_Popeye_March_2010.pdf https://www5.in.tum.de/~huckle/Sutton_Spinach_Iron_and_Popey...
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

aleksei 9y ago

> However, sometimes it happens that you read first about a topic on wikipedia, and worked something out on the information you found there, before you had time to consult wikipedia's sources. In this case you definitely should cite wikipedia. I was advised to always cite the primary source, even if I learnt of something in a secondary source, eg. lit review or Wikipedia. The reason being that if the reader wants to follow up on it, it's the quickest path. I'd say it's also just good practice to credit the original authors for their work. Citing Wikipedia also puts the reader in the uncomfortable position of either taking your word for something, or having to go through Wikipedia's sources themselves to verify something.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
> Citing Wikipedia also puts the reader in the uncomfortable position of either taking your word for something, or having to go through Wikipedia's sources themselves to verify something. How does this differ from citing anything else?
- ufo 9y ago
  The problem is that Wikipedia is a secondary source. If I cite wikipedia you need to go through the reference list in the end of the article to find the primary source for the fact that I cited. If I had instead cited that source directly you wouldn't need to go through this extra step.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    Yes you would. Why would you trust the source Wikipedia cites more than you trust Wikipedia? It's not a primary source either; those are very rare. https://www5.in.tum.de/~huckle/Sutton_Spinach_Iron_and_Popeye_March_2010.pdf https://www5.in.tum.de/~huckle/Sutton_Spinach_Iron_and_Popey...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]