Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbruce
I don't know why you believe this is the case. The citations in Wikipedia are often weblinks are that easier, not harder, to trace than those in a printed text.
|
Following those links and citing those as references would be fine. Citing Wikipedia itself, which could have been edited five minutes earlier, complete with fake links, is not.
Setting aside the random vandalism and strong biases that pop up occasionally, Wikipedia contains inaccuracies and biases that last until someone notices and corrects them. Citing the page on Pluto is probably reasonably accurate; many people watch to make sure that's up to date. Citing the page on Filk music is more iffy; it fails to even mention songbooks except in its links section. The page on the Feri tradition was written by one person, and reflects his biases, with a few minor changes added by people who disagree strongly. It fails to encompass definitions and variations preferred by Feri initiates who aren't online at all.
(Am I going to fix it? Hell no; I don't need to get into a wiki war about my religion. I don't need for the general public to have much accurate information about my religion, either; the info there isn't exactly wrong as much as it is skewed, and I'm content for it to stay that way. But it's not a good source for an academic paper about Feri, or Modern Neopaganism, or American Witchcraft, or whatever.)