Dear Kathleen, I did not say that Wikipedia should not be cited in the literature, period. You are choosing to ignore this tweet in which I specifically said that a journal article about Wikipedia would be an appropriate context to cite Wikipedia: https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177278566687477761 There is also the wider context of a website which not only breaks WIkipedia's licensing rules <https://twitter.com/pigsonthewing/status/1177302213477183489>, but does so in order to trick professors into thinking a Wikipedia citation comes from a journal. I agree that Twitter is not the best place for nuance, and perhaps I would have been wise to specifically say that Wikipedia is not an 'academic level source' rather than simply a source. However, I stand by this characterisation, because the ultimate source for any of the information on Wikipedia is not Wikipedia, it's another source. Wikipedia acts as a source aggregator. At Wikimedia UK, we deal all the time with people who flat out refuse to use Wikipedia in academic and educational contexts because students use it improperly. We use the expression 'write Wikipedia, don't cite Wikipedia'. You may have a different context as a librarian, but I very much take exception to the way you have mischaracterised our interaction above. Regards, John Lubbock Communications Coordinator Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 203 372 0767 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Office 1, Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ. Wikimedia UK is the national chapter of the global Wikimedia open knowledge movement. We rely on donations from individuals to support our work to make knowledge open for all. Have you considered supporting Wikimedia UK? Donate here <https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk>. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:53, Merrilee Proffitt &lt;mproffitt(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hi, > > I completely agree with Kathleen. I would assert that it is a lack of > nuance around the nature of information sources and the research task at > hand that has lead educators and others to wholesale "ban" the use of > Wikipedia. > > Whether or not a source can be utilized in a research context depends on > the researcher, and what information they are supporting with the citation. > For my middle school daughter doing some investigation on an element in the > periodic table (as she has been doing this week), the Wikipedia English > article (or any encyclopedia article) is appropriate for her. For a > graduate student in chemistry this would not be appropriate, but the grad > student might (appropriately) cite Wikipedia for some basic definitional > stuff, just as they might cite a dictionary or something similar. You see > Wikipedia utilized appropriately in citations all the time -- why would we > discourage this? > > Having conversations about the veracity of online information is tough. > Wikipedia can be challenging because articles are at various levels of > development. To my mind, this makes it something that those of us engaged > in conversations around information literacy should steer towards, rather > than away from, because a) Wikipedia is widely utilized in a variety of > contexts and b) it is a great teaching tool for talking about when you can > trust information online and when you should steer clear. But saying "no" > to *any* information source without having a discussion about it seems > lazy. It definitely does not reflect the type of discourse we should be > having, especially now. > > I look forward to more discussion on this topic. > > Merrilee > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:02 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) &lt;nemowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> Twitter doesn't facilitate reasoned arguments. I suppose as usual the >> goal was to encourage greater use of the references and other >> meta-content of Wikipedia articles, which are excellent tools for >> critical thinking. >> >> Federico >> >> Kathleen DeLaurenti, 26/09/19 17:55: >> > Hi all - >> > >> > As a librarian who uses and supports Wikipedia, I wanted to bring up >> > some issues around the BuzzFeed article posted today about M-Journal >> > that has led to some messaging from the WikipediaUK twitter account >> that >> > I find concerning. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to >> > bring this up, but I wasn't sure where else to reach out. >> > >> > For those who missed, a citation cite is not manufacturing journal >> > articles if a student submits a Wiki article so that it looks like an >> > "official" citation in their school research papers. >> > >> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/wikipedia-fake-academic-… >> > >> > Clearly there are some nefarious potential uses here, but what's more >> > concerning is that the WikiUK twitter account has come forward >> > forcefully saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be cited in the literature. >> > Period. >> > https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1177215917534711808 >> > >> > I work very hard to improve the cite through my courses and academic >> > advocacy as do many librarians. It's concern to me to see Wikipedia >> > undermining its own authority in such a public way in what appears to >> be >> > a misguided attempt to deflect association with the MJournal site. >> > >> > Would welcome any insight or ideas on how to navigate this discussion. >> > The entire M-Journal use case exists, imho, because we are still >> > battling for a critical (not blanket acceptance) view of Wiki as a >> > resources, and I find this kind of public statement to be very >> damaging >> > to the hard work so many are doing to create a quality information >> resource. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Libraries mailing list >> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries >> >