Wikipedia, the thread!

[Boris Johnson]

[Daktoria]

Professionalism's an interesting concept. It's based on existing among a community of peers who operate according to standards.

Similarly, when I refer to wikipedia, half of the point is the community of the matter. It's not just showing what an idea means, but how an idea is interpreted.

It's closer to referring to an art history textbook than a biochemistry textbook. It's a social, not technical, reference in understanding what things mean.

(As for "ignore all rules", they're deliberately being provocative. They don't care if people get in trouble. They just want to expand knowledge.)

[The Comrade]

one of my professors this semester told me to read a wiki article because "most of it is true and the stuff that isn't proven yet is backed up with research at least"

i think as the quality has improved professionals are beginning to look at it more seriously. it will never achieve the level of credibility that, say, the SEP has but it's not really meant to.

[Daktoria]

[Davethulhu]

It's usually not difficult to follow the footnotes to the original source of a particular fact, which I'll usually do to avoid arguments about sourcing.

[Sazari]

WIKIPEDIA is always best for a general overview. If you are trying to cite it, then simply cite the source that is link in wikipedia. If it's not cited in wikipedia, you shouldn't take it as fact.

[Homer]

No encyclopedia is perfect. The one thing Wiki has going for it is that it can be updated quite quickly, something that a printed encyclopedia, no matter how respected, can't do.

[Boris Johnson]

[The Comrade]

[Homer]

I only ever use conservapedia.

edit: speaking of which, their page on socialism is good for a few lulz. http://conservapedia.com/Socialism