On 6/2/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge
I essentially agree. Some people still argue
that Wikipedia itself is
not a reliable source. On the other hand "Scientific American" for this
month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
A good example - it depends how you use Wikipedia whether you would
call it a "reliable source". If it makes a definitive, unsourced
claim, I would not call it reliable. If it provides the source further
upstream, and you check them out, it's a very useful source.
If you're checking the source "further upstream", you should be
the original source, not the encyclopedia article.
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.