Wikipedia is not original research

[redbird]

and it should not be cited as such.

A reference in an article to a specific person's work should not just say "Dijkstra, E. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarded_Command_Language." Fortunately, Wikipedia is footnoted, so I have sent this article back with the suggestion of citing the original paper either via Dijkstra's web site, or as published in Communications of the ACM (which is referenced on the copy of the paper on the author's web site). Citing the paper and then pointing to Wikipedia for more information on the topic would, I think, be reasonable. But I am not the editor here, I'm the proofreader, so it's someone else's decision.

(As it happens, this particular Wikipedia article notes "needs additional citations for verification" at the top.)

Comments

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Not long ago the author of a book I was editing for a university press cited Wikipedia. I politely told her that it was not an accpetable scholarly source. I did NOT say, "My kids weren't allowed to cite Wikipedia in papers in HIGH SCHOOL."