Thanks for pointing out the link. A few of her comments are good, but some of them are downright strange.
Frederick Noronha wrote:
Matei recommends Wikipedia be used as a search engine that acts as a springboard to other resources and that it never be cited as a primary source of information. But before starting an Internet search, Matei urges users to consult with a professional who can help focus their research topic. After narrowing the topic, those in an academic environment should then search for more literature on major article databases from institutional organizations, such as ProQuest or LexisNexis.
"Many of the papers found on these databases are reviewed by highly qualified individuals and institutions," Matei says. "They are not just very powerful and accessible search engines, they are also excellent filters of information that can be easily sorted by topics, subjects and time."
After a broader Internet search, Matei says the Wikipedia page can be used to help clarify some specific questions or terms that the initial research process has not been able to resolve.
This seems strangely self-contradictory, although to be fair that might be the fault of the article writer instead of Ms. Matei's. It certainly isn't how I, or anyone else I know, uses or would recommend using Wikipedia. You resort to a paid professional *after* Wikipedia, not *before*. Wikipedia is particularly good as a first glance, giving you search terms you might not have heard of, pointeres to other related topics, and in good articles an overview of the subject. And I'd argue that unless people know what they're doing, a search of LexisNexis or ProQuest (or Google Scholar) is likely to be much worse than browsing the Wikipedia article as a first resource. A good Wikipedia article puts all these sources in context, and so is infinitely better than the raw listing of sources as a first reference. These databases are giant archives of primary sources, *not* generally reviewed, interrelated, or usefully commented upon. Honestly this part, especially with its focus on paid professionals and pay-access archives, strikes me as a bit of turf defense.
The suggestions further down about how to spot potentially questionable Wikipedia articles are good ones, though.
-Mark