Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gurenkagurenda t1_j63316c wrote

Reply to comment by _trouble_every_day_ in ChatGPT can’t be credited as an author, says world’s largest academic publisher (26 Jan. 2023) by marketrent

> Wikipedia is not a valid source for citation, that’s why it requires citations for edits.

No, Wikipedia requires citations for edits because it’s not a primary source and doesn’t allow original research. Wikipedia is a perfectly valid “source for citation” like any other source, but whoever is reviewing or reading your article may, reasonably, not find it to be a credible source.

1

_trouble_every_day_ t1_j656uv5 wrote

It’s not a valid source by any academic or professional standard. It seems like you’re talking about social media posts in which case there’s no point in arguing what’s credible as there is no set standard other than whatever’s enforced by their content policy.

1

gurenkagurenda t1_j65fd63 wrote

No, I'm talking about in general. The editorial standards of the publication you're publishing in may not (and in most cases will not) find Wikipedia to be reliable, which is why you shouldn't cite it in most cases. But it's just another source, and there are contexts when it would be not only acceptable, but absolutely necessary to cite it – for example, if you were studying the content of Wikipedia articles themselves, like this.

1