You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

9
11

[–] sun_butt 9 points 11 points (+20|-9) ago 

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information. Never use it for actual research.

[–] [deleted] 1 point 38 points (+39|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

12
1

[–] pewpewpewmoon 12 points 1 point (+13|-12) ago  (edited ago)

No. No it can't.

Not only have the sources of information themselves become increasingly questionable over the last couple of years, the term citogenisis came into popularity because of citations that refer back to wikipedia either directly or indirectly.

EDIT : Go down syndrome on me all you want, but it was painfully obvious who used wikipedia for their citations on research papers when I was a TA.

1
6

[–] vicarious 1 point 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Wikipedia is not a primary source of information, it's a synthesis of various other sources, always cited in the "References" sections.

Besides that, there are almost 5 million articles on Wikipedia. A few errors or bias here and there is no different from what you would find in the Encyclopedia Britannica for example and doesn’t' remove from it's usefulness as a research tool.