4 ms·

> A chrome extension for finding citations in Wikipedia In academia, Wikepedia citations are generally a no no. One reason is their unrelaibity (the author is

by Daub 2y ago

> A chrome extension for finding citations in Wikipedia In academia, Wikepedia citations are generally a no no. One reason is their unrelaibity (the author is citing a source that they themselves can edit). More importantly, Wikepedia may be a good place to find primary sources, but in itself it is a secondary source.

jfengel 2y ago
Wikipedia prefers to be a tertiary source. They want the references to be to secondary sources, rather than primary sources. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
jimbobthrowawy 2y ago
It really shouldn't, considering they have a rule about not using primary sources.
- _notreallyme_ 2y ago
  Yes, they explicitly classify wikipedia as a tertiary source [1]. Wikipedia is good for finding secondary source, and then primary sources by following the links. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources#Definitions_of_primary,_secondary_and_tertiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_an...
boxed 2y ago
That justification seems a bit behind the times honestly. We've now seen actual academic fraud on a massive scale with extremely little in the way of a correction to fix this, while at the same time we've seen Wikipedia handle abuse extremely well. The academic fraud is a threat to Wikipedia, more than using wikipedia links is a threat to academia.
Waterluvian 2y ago
This seems no different than it’s always been. Even before Wikipedia you would not cite secondary sources. But you sure would use them to get a foothold on a topic and find some of those sources.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lozenge 2y ago
The point is to find the information in Wikipedia which often then has a citation to another source. If you search Google you often find repetitions of the information but most sites don't cite sources.
- Daub 2y ago
  Yes... this exactly.
bawolff 2y ago
> One reason is their unrelaibity (the author is citing a source that they themselves can edit) There is plenty of reasons why wikipedia is an inapropriate source to cite most of the time in academia, but that surely is not one of them. Acedemics cite their own papers or other sources they have editorial control over all the time.

by Daub 2y ago

jfengel 2y ago

Wikipedia prefers to be a tertiary source. They want the references to be to secondary sources, rather than primary sources. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

jimbobthrowawy 2y ago

It really shouldn't, considering they have a rule about not using primary sources.

_notreallyme_ 2y ago
Yes, they explicitly classify wikipedia as a tertiary source [1]. Wikipedia is good for finding secondary source, and then primary sources by following the links. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources#Definitions_of_primary,_secondary_and_tertiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_an...

boxed 2y ago

That justification seems a bit behind the times honestly. We've now seen actual academic fraud on a massive scale with extremely little in the way of a correction to fix this, while at the same time we've seen Wikipedia handle abuse extremely well. The academic fraud is a threat to Wikipedia, more than using wikipedia links is a threat to academia.

Waterluvian 2y ago

This seems no different than it’s always been. Even before Wikipedia you would not cite secondary sources. But you sure would use them to get a foothold on a topic and find some of those sources.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lozenge 2y ago

The point is to find the information in Wikipedia which often then has a citation to another source. If you search Google you often find repetitions of the information but most sites don't cite sources.

Daub 2y ago
Yes... this exactly.

bawolff 2y ago

> One reason is their unrelaibity (the author is citing a source that they themselves can edit) There is plenty of reasons why wikipedia is an inapropriate source to cite most of the time in academia, but that surely is not one of them. Acedemics cite their own papers or other sources they have editorial control over all the time.