Originally posted by Ushgarak
Unfortunately, somone's psychic sense as to whether an article is accurate or not is not good enough.A reference made to academic standards needs to be from a reliable source and give due credit. A wikipedia reference fails on both counts, the information not being reliable and a wiki reference not giving genuinely true credit; it is for these reasons academic institutions reject them.
Belief in whether something is right or wrong isn't any good. There is no error control mechanism for wiki that makes it in any way relaible and hence any reference at all from it does not stand on its own two feet.
A wiki article may well contain very accurate and useful information but there is no way to discern that, unless it provides sources, in which case you can use the sources.
If you happen to think wiki makes a good argument, the use the argument. But that's just opinion. You can type as many opinions here as you like- you don't have to cite them.
Citation is done when you are trying to prove what you say comes from a source of appropriate authority, nut just something you personally think. Wiki is no good in that regard, as its founder was clear on (and in fact, he is now engaged in trying to create a new project that WILL be credible in that way).
Then isn't it damn fortunate that I wasn't refering to mental powers? Isn't that the damndest slice of luck? This is all based upon the fact that I was referring to a certain area.
If someone does an article on music and someone well versed in such an area reads it and confirms it to be truthful, it's not false simply because it's on Wikipedia, it's just another random person writing an article on there.
Naturally in areas regarding science or what have you, citation is needed. If someone on there writes an article on the origins of punk music, and it's correct (which some of them are, and I've read a lot of them), then they are, quite simply.
That was my only point. I agree that citing it for anything other than showing an opinion to be popular or well known, is a bit silly. I never cite Wikipedia as if it's factual, just to illustrate a point.
That doesn't mean someone on there isn't typing factual info. If you're suggesting that citations in debate should come from the actual source, not a person speaking about the source, then yes. I was just pointing out that not everything on there is false.
-AC