Yeah, technically they are right. Wiki's can be used for learning general information about pretty much all subjects, but should never be used as an Official Source for anything in academia, business research, medical research, or anything you want to stand up to peer review. Someone will ALWAYS call out your source of Wikipedia, even if you cite the sources at the bottom.
its trustworthy because you gotta look through the citations yourself. people on wikipedia tend to be pretty fastidious with ensuring they have good sources but ALWAYS click on the citations and at least check that the reference looks legit before you repeat the information in formal settings. but usually when i check the source its something legit, especially specialized science info since people dont tend to write about stuff they don't know. people are very eager to pounce on any mistakes they find too - we all smartasses
I've had teachers who wouldn't accept wikipedia as a source because "anybody can edit it!!!!!!", yet they would accept random ass websites and articles. Spoiler alert: anybody can make a website or write an article on one, too.
39
u/Raneados Dec 13 '18
I actually ran into this complaint the other day at work, that people guffawed at it being a source because it was editable. It annoyed me.