In an academic context, quaternary sources, those citing Wikipedia, itself a tertiary source, anonymously and with various degrees of accuracy and verifiability citing arbitrary secondary sources, themselves presumed to be authoritatively based on primary sources, are about as trustworthy as our President or Prime Minister.
I have no faith. I read (and add) references, not articles. Math and computer science are exemplar exceptions; the humanities and the social sciences are comparatively hopeless for anything other than source discovery. On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 2:45 PM Kathleen DeLaurenti < [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Andy. Doing to many things at once. > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 3:33 PM Andy Mabbett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 20:13, Kathleen DeLaurenti >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia >> >> > Thanks, Andy. But I think Merilee appropriately clarified that the >> policy is about >> > internal citations - not suggesting that other publications cannot cite >> or should not >> > cite Wikipedia. >> >> Not the same page. Please see the one I referred to (and whose URL I >> quote above). >> >> -- >> Andy Mabbett >> @pigsonthewing >> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Libraries mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries >> > _______________________________________________ > Libraries mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries >
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
