The quality of a Wikipedia article can be checked by looking at the references and performing some searches in other places.

When the person has little knowledge, it can be a starting point.

It can be cited. I have seen papers with a lot of fancy stuff that had problems.

Balance, coherence, a sound development and attention to the details of the work are more relevant.

I have reviewed papers from top researchers with "sophisticated" references that were not good.

Regards.

For initial overview of a subject of interest it's a priceless tool. However, the validity and scientific quality of different articles may vary. Hence, for a deeper delving into the chosen subject matter, some prudence should be exercised and more competent sources should be used.

No because it contains a lot of incorrect information

I can not use Wikipedia as a reference.

Thanks dear colleagues for your comments, however, a lot of research contains uncertainty.

I think most of the Wikipedia articles are correct, especially if they are properly referenced as well.

Is there any research on the accuracy of Wikipedia contents?

I believe, Wikipedia is open to public for correcting/editing its articles, if following certain redacting rules. It's sort of a self-sustained World Encyclopedia. My understanding, Wikipedia is a freeware and depend financially on donations. It's a very courageous step of the founder(s)/owner(s). They could easily make it a cash cow asking even nominal fees. However, making it freeware they encouraged active collective authorship from all around the world. I could compare it with freeware in software products development and support. Thousands of software engineers gladly participated/participate in that.

Dear Mohamad-Hani Temsah,

If the information there is correct, you can use.

Regards,

Shafagat

Having the Wikipedia editing open for everyone is like a peer-review process open to all the humans on earth.

This seems like the ultimate peer review possible, as long as it follows strict rules and properly referenced in the text.

I do agree with Journal Editor in chief for obvious reasons. Wikipedia should not be accepted for citing in scientific journals.

Follow

Well,

It is not 100% accurate.

Regards

The quality of a Wikipedia article can be checked by looking at the references and performing some searches in other places.

When the person has little knowledge, it can be a starting point.

It can be cited. I have seen papers with a lot of fancy stuff that had problems.

Balance, coherence, a sound development and attention to the details of the work are more relevant.

I have reviewed papers from top researchers with "sophisticated" references that were not good.

Regards.

If the editor has checked the fact taken from Wikipedia and the source or fact is incorrect, then he or she has the responsibility to ask you to remove Wikipedia as source. I also wouldn't accept Wikipedia as the only source to support a fact. But if there are more scientific sources coherently supporting that fact Wikipedia has cited, such as (edited) books, peer reviewed journals, thesis from universities, notes from scientific laboratories, dictionaries, then there is no reason to remove Wikipedia as source. It is maybe the journal's (style)policy not to use wikipedia as source. But is Encyclopedia Brittanica better than Wikipedia?

Wikipedia, because it is easy to access, can be used as a starting point for research and many people are doing that, even though they will tell you otherwise.

In scientific research there is a golden unwritten rule that: one source is not enough to represent a credible scientific fact, two different sources is too weak, three to four sources are enough and five and more form a solid base.

Great discussion point, Mohamad-Hani Temsah !

Dear Mohamad-Hani Temsah : it actually depend on the reviewers perception. Some research find out that wikipedia's entries had an overall accuracy rate of 80 percent, whereas the other encyclopedias had an accuracy rate of 95 to 96 percent. Before you refer something from wikipedia you have to make sure that the content is reliable and accurate in respect to other research.

It is better to go to the original source(s) listed in the Wiki article, research their authenticity, read them and then cite them.

Not only Wikipedia, the whole of the internet has a problem with credibity and accuracy. E.g. I was checking a page on philosophy and because I had some prior knowledge of a certain fact, I saw some information which was not correct. If I would see that webpage as source I would have my suspicion. If I would see that same fact no matter where it comes from, I would say something about it. Collecting facts to build knowledge asks an ongoing process of verification.

Wikipedia is now considered as the first choice of information. It is a dynamic encyclopedia of information, because it is voluntarily being upgraded regularly by the commoners and the experts. Therefore, it may be regarded 1-up on printed encyclopedia, which get upgraded rarely. Wikipedia also normally gives link to the original source of information for anybody to double-check. Wikipedia management perhaps sees to it that not significant information is getting deleted from its articles and also articles are not lost from this ocean of information. From that point of view, Wikipedia articles are being quoted as references in books and journals and reasonably accepted, as being also an archive of useful information.

I fully agree with the Journal's editor. It is true that Wikipedia contains important, up-to-date and easily accessible information. However, it is not considered to be a scientific reference that can be cited.

No!

If citing any website in research, adding the date that website was accessed is vital. This will ensure that even if the website's content change, still it can be tracked back in time.

Many scientists doubt information taken from wikipedia

Using other stronger sources of evidence is recommended.

I don't think so .

Generally, Wikipedia is not a serous citation. There can be exceptions if one is talking about popular knowledge or reactions. But while Wikipedia is a great source of basic perspective you’ll find that most serious entries will have footnotes guiding you to primary sources. Click on those, read them and use if applicable (don’t, don’t, don’t just paste a Wikipedia citation without accessing it yourself).

Dear Mohamad-Hani Temsah , this is fine resource, which was udated on August 26th, 2019. It is about How to cite Wikipedia. Different citations styles were considered. But, they say:

Should you use Wikipedia when writing your paper?

"Generally, you should not use Wikipedia as a source in academic writing. As anyone can contribute to an article, there is no guarantee that the information will be factually accurate, current or original."

https://www.scribbr.com/citing-sources/how-to-cite-wikipedia/

Wikipedia's information are editable and normally paid edited. Content writers of Wikipedia's use different references to write the content in the easiest way so readers can easily understand that topic. But it is not fixed, one may improve it and delete that citation content due to improvement of that topic in Wikipedia. Also, paid content.

That's the reason. But one can use references from the references given in Wikipedia's content. It is more valid to give citation to the originals.

As Ljubomir says, there is a form for Wikipedia citations but that does not answer whether a Wikipedia citation will be taken seriously. And, as Hashane notes, Wikipedia entries are edited and fluid, changing sometimes with new writing or data. And, finally, one finds some entries where the administrators note the work needs edits. But at this point in science and social science, the strong preference by peer reviewers is for primary sources. In teaching, Wikipedia is discouraged as a citation because the hope is students will go a step further, use it as a first-stop, and go to primary works.

I do not think so, but it is possible to investigate the information that is presented and then rely on reliable references ..

For getting the basic information it may be useful

Generally, Wikipedia is not a serous citation .

Certainly not.

While Wikipedia may not be fully reliable citation source at this time, however, this may change if the site becomes more vigilant in its content and sources.

If you can cite other encyclopedias, why not cite such open source encyclopedia similarly?

Thanks dear colleagues for your comments.

If you are concerned about the Wikipedia changing contents over time, that is similar to all website citations. That is why we should add the website access date to make your reference more reliable.

Dear Mohamad-Hani Temsah

Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia can be a starting point for newcomer researchers. In addition to Ljubomir Jacić 's and other colleagues' answers, using Wikipedia in academic writing should be minimized because it is an open source so it could be modified by members. As you mentioned access date should be added to increase reliability of referencing process.

In this respect, an article in Wikipedia itself mentioned that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything, and as a quick "ready reference", to get a sense of a concept or idea". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

Of course it can but should be handled with a lot of care. Wikipedia itself has references. I think I will prefer citing the references Wikipedia used after authenticating it.

For new rise conceptions or technologies which haven't had enough research articles references yet, Wikipedia should be a good option to start.

No. But we can get the basic idea about anything.

Dear Mohamad-Hani Temsah , there is one long thread with more than 720 answers. It may be good experience to visit it.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Citing_Wikipedia11

Thanks dear @Ljubomir Jacić for sharing this thread,

and seems to me that there's still no final consensus on this topic throughout those 7 years of the thread ? Or is there ?

Of note that the previous thread on Wikipedia that got 720 posts stopped on October 2015. Since then many changes in Wikipedia dynamics occurred, and I think there's more emphasis on authentication and referencing among its editors.