Citing Wikipedia

[RJensen]

All web links change, and the requirement of 100% stability means CZ will link to nothing at all out there.

[Robert_W_King]

All web links change, and the requirement of 100% stability means CZ will link to nothing at all out there.

Don't confuse the availability with general web links with the "stabilized accuracy" of wikipedia articles.

[Aleta Curry]

Ultimately the point is that because there is a constant variable of uncertainty that you must account for in WP articles, they cannot be deemed reference-worthy.  ....

I don't have a problem with this argument.

If you're ready to quote or cite, surely you can also go to the primary and secondary sources to make sure?  (You might even have written them.... )

[Harald van Lintel]

That's interesting! 
For sure there are many good articles on the web - including inside Wikipedia - and there is certainly nothing wrong with *linking* to them *as long as they are archived*. It's in general a bad idea to refer to something the contents of which are subject to change. Authors should either refer to an exisitng archived good version  of such a web page, or make their own archived version with for example http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php.

If this is not already included in the author guide, please include it! 

Regards,
Harald

[Aleta Curry]

Hmm...archived pages--I never thought of that.

I think I'd still vote against linking to WP.  I don't find it moral or confidence-inspiring.

[Joe Quick]

I agree that many Wikipedia articles are very good sources.  Check out the one on the Boy Scouts of America.  It's got some style issues in a couple of spots but I think it's quite well written overall.  I think hte high-quality articles on CZ are more citable, however, and will probably be cited much more often in the future.  That's partially a result of our community's organization and mission but it also has a lot to do with the fact that we produce stable versions when we approve articles.  I would feel much better about citing something that will still be what I saw when I first read it if a reader goes to check it out.

Have we put together instructions on how to cite CZ?  We should make sure that the approved version number is included.

Oh, and by the way, there are a number of other articles in the CZ corpus that cite Wikipedia indirectly through other sites (like answers.com).

[Nereo Preto]

I don't find that bad we cite Wikipedia, the worst problem about it is the (non)-stability of WP articles. However, WP is never a primary source, and good WP articles cite their sources.

Having the time to do it, it shouldn't be difficult to substitute citations of WP with the primary cources cited in WP (plus ours, if possible). It also would be a good practice, improving the quality of our articles.

[Aleta Curry]

.... However, WP is never a primary source, and good WP articles cite their sources.
... it shouldn't be difficult to substitute citations of WP with the primary cources cited in WP (plus ours, if possible). It also would be a good practice, improving the quality of our articles.

Yep.

[Larry Sanger]

Obviously, we should remove all links to Wikipedia articles that that take Wikipedia as a source.  If anyone wants to spend an hour and go through those 43 pages, that would be great!

[tkjazzer]

Ultimately the point is that because there is a constant variable of uncertainty that you must account for in WP articles, they cannot be deemed reference-worthy.  Until there is such a time that we can be absolutely certain that there is an expectation of 100% stability (or 99.9999%) I don't think we should be referencing WP at all.

I disagree with this quote above.

I would agree with those who believe it should be the author who can decide which WP articles are worth placing in the external links section.

Another note, if we want wikipedia to link to us, we should then link to their good articles.

[tkjazzer]

Obviously, we should remove all links to Wikipedia articles that that take Wikipedia as a source.  If anyone wants to spend an hour and go through those 43 pages, that would be great!

"source" should be different from external link.

definitely no wikipedia sources. but I think external links are ok because if you link to it, people could then look at the sources from the WP articles and decide if they want to read that source material to then cite directly from the original source in the CZ article... make sense?

It would just be a way to quickly gather some sources.

[Gareth Leng]

Like others I don't see a problem with a Wikipedia link in the "External Links" subsection, if there is a line justifying its addition (e.g.This is an unusually good Wikipedia article that gives a large amount of well-sourced detail"). Like others I think they should never be used as sources in the text. I've gone through the Doctor Who articles, and as far as I could see they weren't necessary, so I removed them.

[Robert_W_King]

Ultimately the point is that because there is a constant variable of uncertainty that you must account for in WP articles, they cannot be deemed reference-worthy.  Until there is such a time that we can be absolutely certain that there is an expectation of 100% stability (or 99.9999%) I don't think we should be referencing WP at all.

I disagree with this quote above.

I would agree with those who believe it should be the author who can decide which WP articles are worth placing in the external links section.

Another note, if we want wikipedia to link to us, we should then link to their good articles.

Don't read me incorrectly--I have no qualms about placing an "External Link" to WP articles, but my point was that they should NEVER be used as a primary source for anything (especially in the articlespace); I think everyone is in agreement on this point.

[Aleta Curry]

So my next question would be, *why* would one place an external link to WP articles?

How is this good practice?

[Warren Schudy]

Recently, there have been some reports to the EU and even some academic conference papers citing WP, in quite an uncritical and central manner. My reaction, along with those of other senior academics, is one of abject horror. In fact, we say quite openly -- if that is his/her idea of a good source, what is the quality of the research done here? Thus, with one reckless citation they have undermined their own work!

The same applies to CZ, of course, and we should remove them.

Citing WP is usually academically inappropriate, but occasionally it makes sense. For example, here's a recent paper published in one of the top conferences in theoretical computer science (SODA): http://theory.stanford.edu/~sergei/papers/hiring-soda.pdf . The paper discusses a mathematical analysis of what happens if a company hires employees that are always above the company's current average. It cites Wikipedia articles on Lake Wobegon (footnote page 2) and Vitality Curve (first paragraph of section 6.4 cites [17], which is WP). In this context, I think it's perfectly acceptable to cite WP. Lake Wobegon is only mentioned as a joke, so if the Wikipedia article were completely wrong, no one would care. Vitality curve is used as motivation so the paper would be hurt a bit if it were wrong. However, no one is going to use a computer science article as a source on the history of business, so if WP turned out to be wrong little harm would be done (except possible slander of Jack Welch). Ideally they would of course cited original sources, but they have better things to do with their time than tracking those down.

That said, circumstances that merit citing WP in academic papers are somewhat unusual. I am not asserting that WP is usually citable, only that it is citable in some circumstances.