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

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

A few months ago, Virginia had someone find that one of our school history books includes that thousands of black slaves willing fought for the South in the Civil War. When the author was asked about it, she said she found it on the website of the Sons of the Confederates. Not quite an answer site, but she assumed it was correct. Now they've found another book that's similar, also hers and her publisher, and lots of choices are being considered.