That terrible thing called Wikipedia

I remember that I was once in company that regularly rebuked me if I referenced to anything I knew from Wikipedia. While I was not nearly the worst perpetrator of such things (far from it), the lesson was drilled well enough in me, that if I did not know something, I either satisfy my curiosity from a proper book on the matter, or I simply avoid using a shallow internet source and remain in ignorance.

The effect has been remarkable. I simply do not feel the urge to talk about things on which I do not know, and if I do speak on it, I speak only substantially.

Of course, in those days, even if I had the names of proper books and referenced what I knew from there after having read them, some people cynically believed I still copied it from a search online, and it took some effort to show them that I did my extensive reading.

But I owe a lot to that cynicism.

What is the problem with using WikiPoedia?

If you are expected to present credible sources, then just lift the sources that are used in the WikiPoedia article.

^ this. Many people don’t even know, that wikipedia has (or should have) credible sources for the info, otherwise the page get deleted. So accept just that some people are ignorant about it. Actually, I didn’t know that too for a long time.

This section is FUNNY.

Or you could even use wikipedia as a way to find more sources and read them. ;p

It’s also an abuse of the {citation_needed} tag. You can remove at least all but one per line, actually even more, if you feel like it. I’d do it right now, but I need to catch up here and then go home.

Don’t remove it. It discredits them.

Wikipedia is a credible source of often incredible sources.