I agree. You don’t use it as a source in an academic paper, just like you shouldn’t be using an encyclopedia. It’s still way better than listing Chat GPT as a source, but the quality of your sources matter in that setting.
It’s an incredible resource though and great jumping off point for research. It’s so much bigger than any normal encyclopedia, and from what ive heard it’s usually more accurate than a traditional encyclopedia (do they still exist?), despite anyone being able to edit it. It’s a source for winning an argument with a friend, not for academic papers (the sources listed on the Wikipedia article are often good). Expect to be called out on it if you cite it.
There’s many issues with academic journals and one could argue Wikipedia is actually better for evading those traps, but your prof isn’t going to see it that way and you’ll lose marks for using a bad source
EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
Wikipedia has quite strict rules on who cam edit what, and what can be changed, especially on major articles.
Besides, you follow the sources the Wikipedia article uses and cite those things. Not cite Wikipedia itself
protist@retrofed.com 5 days ago
That’s literally what I said lol
BossDj@piefed.social 6 hours ago
Nobody here ever said it can be used as a source
protist@retrofed.com 6 hours ago
I was responding to someone complaining about teachers telling students not to use Wikipedia. Literally the only reason teachers say that is so students don’t use it as a primary source when doing assignments