Science versus Academia

[Igel]

14. Wiki can be good.

Some articles aren't trustworthy because they're controversial and consequently a war zone.

Some articles are subject to random fluctuation. The editors try to keep it all clean--if the editors are themselves clean--but can't always manage.

Therein's the problem. Since you can't tell and since it's not peer reviewed, it's not trustworthy. It's fully derivative, and there's no point citing Wiki when Wiki tells you exactly what else to cite.

It's a glossed metalink. Why cite the metalink when you can read the *full* versions, with all the explanations? It's like citing Cliff Notes in a scholarly work on Austen instead of actually citing Austen or the original works written about Austin.

BTW, history profs have the same problem at times as science profs. It's just since the standard of proof is less ironclad, you can usually argue against the evidence until you're emeritus.