Pleas don't cite wikipedia as a source for facts

[Nunnster]

I typically wouldn't cite an internet article if I were conducting research at all... Every professor I've ever had frowned on it, and would limit our internet citations on research papers. In fact, I believe it was a school policy that no more than 2 internet citations could be used on a research paper. I bent that rule a lot by reading a book, magazine, medical journal, court proceedings, legal journals, etc... on the internet, and finding out the publishing information for the actual printed version...

...

Actually, at least going by my collage professors, these are not actual "internet" sources. These are "electronic" sources. For example, I have access to a college database, which while the information is "online", the information contained inside also *usually* has a print version as well, therefore not considered an internet source. An internet source would be an online story on something like CNN.com or something like that, since the information is not in print. At least, for my professors that is the case.

 

[Jman8]

I never stated that we shouldn't 'use' wikipedia at all. I stated that we shouldn't cite it as source for facts.

And my response (found earlier in this thread) is what sources ought to be cited for facts that are 100% accepted by all humans? I believe you will never, ever, find that source.

Wikipedia has visible shortcomings as noted on this thread. I agree with those as shortcomings. But still think Wikipedia, being as accessible as it is, is the best of what's around. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

 

[Mdoch]

Why not edit the Wikipedia article?

the exact same thing that first pop into my head.