On 6/4/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I just looked at the new Scientific American (ah, the advantages of working in a library) and skimmed the article. I may have missed it but I don't see any instances of the author citing Wikipedia as a source. The article does include a link to Wikipedia under a list of "More to Explore" weblinks, which seems an entirely proper use.
This all depends on how rigidly you look at the term "source". Scientific American does not typically have a lot of footnotes, but it does give opportunities such as this for further exploration. Are you saying that this makes the magazine less credible?
Please don't put words in my mouth.