========================================================================
Subject: WIKIPEDIA F.A.Q.
========================================================================

I am tempted to cite Wikipedia; should I?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is usually no reason to do so, especially if you cite it for a
definition.  You can get better definitions from texts or published
articles.  (And don't be tempted to cite a, or "the", dictionary;
that's also a no-no, but one that I'll leave for another time.)

In general, you should rarely, if ever, cite Wikipedia as a source in a
technical paper for publication or in a paper for a course.  There are
two reasons:

1.  There is no way to know who wrote the articles, so no way to judge
if they are accurate (unless you already know the material discussed, in
which case, there's no reason for you to be reading the article or
citing it; you presumably know enough to be able to cite a more standard
source).

2.  Anyone can change any article at any time, so your citing an article
*now* doesn't mean that your reader will necessarily be able to find it
*later* to check it (or that what they find will be what you cited).
Note that this is independent of point 1, which concerns the possible
unreliability of the authors; point 2 concerns the dynamic nature of the
resource--only static resources should be cited, so that everyone knows
that they are referring to the same thing and not a changing target.

(Yes, I know that there is a Wikipedia archive; see below.)

There are exceptions:  

	* Obviously, if you're writing a paper about Wikipedia,
	  you can cite articles in it (though keep point 2 in mind!).

	* And I have cited the Wikipedia article on UB CSE's SNePS
	  knowledge representation, reasoning, and acting system,
	  because it was our SNePS Research Group that wrote it.
	  (Of course, I have to keep checking it to make sure that no
	  one has hacked it!)  

	* And very occasionally I will recommend a Wikipedia article
	  to introduce someone to a topic, *if* I can't find anything
	  better on the Web, and *if* I know the material well enough
	  to know that the Wikipedia article is authoritative.
	  Nevertheless, point 2 is always lurking in the background.


Isn't there a way to work around problem #2?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes:  Jon Bona explains:  "You can link to a specific version of any
article. For instance, here is a link to the Wikipedia article on
"Philosophy":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy

"Just about anyone who wants to can edit this page. If I wanted to, I
could add the assertion that Socrates ate grilled cheese for lunch
every day. Someone would probably remove it quickly, but, during the
time between my adding it and their removing it, that would be the
official Wikipedia story on Socrates.

"Contrast that link with this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&oldid=113498091
As it says near the top of this page, this is the Revision as of
04:14, 8 March 2007. What the page looked like when someone made a
change to it at 4:14 on March 8 is not something that changes.
Wikipedia keeps track of that, and allows you to link directly to
specific version.

"To do that, go to the page and click on the "history" tab. You will
see a list of the most recent revisions made to the page. You can view
a specific version by clicking on its date and time.

"Problem #1 is serious enough on its own to make citing wikipedia in
any serious work a bad idea. It's worth noting however that wikipedia
often has links to sources that *are* citable."


So, am I allowed to do that for the term paper?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.  It's useful, but (a) difficult to use; e.g., is there an easy link
on a Wikipedia entry that points you to such an "archival" citation link?
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is a much more authoritative,
yet dynamic, web encyclopedia, has such a link prominently displayed on
each page--and (b) I suspect that most people, certainly *all* students
who have cited Wikipedia in papers they've turned in to me, either don't
know about this or ignore it.


But what about the external references that are sometimes provided at
the end of a Wikipedia article?  Often, they are both static and are
written by identified authors.  Can I use them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
They can be useful.  Note that I didn't say that Wikipedia isn't useful.
In fact, I've often found, much to my pleasant surprise, that most
articles on Wikipedia are pretty good.  But being useful and having
useful external links doesn't make it *citable*, which was the point I
wanted to bring out.  As I've said, *using* Wikipedia is fine (as long
as you take what it says with a grain of salt); citing it is usually not.

You might be amused by this article from the NY Times:

Cohen, Noam (2007), "A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia As a
Research Source", NY Times (21 February): B8.

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/Papers.by.Others/wikipediaban-nyt.pdf

username=Bill
password=Rapaport