Phil Sandifer wrote:
Nonsense. I could write that many words about using the New York Times as a source. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that there is some well of magically reliable sources that can be cited without critical thought.
The New York times is a primary source, an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source. Tertiary sources should be much more reliable than primary. The way you approach Wikipedia is more as if it was a primary source.
You went from claiming that Wikipedia was reliable to saying that everything is unreliable. So, the issue we talk about is the degree of unreliability, and my contention is that Wikipedia for a tertiary source is to unreliable to be used as a source for research. Wikipedia unfortunately is often a primary source, with articles that are not more than a first year essay on a topic.
Kim