What does Jimmy Wales think when a university professor discourages students from citing Wikipedia as a primary or secondary source?

Wikipedia is a GREAT source or I suppose secondary source. I have written entire research papers using almost nothing but wikipedia as my source, how you ask? The bottom of any good wikipedia topic will include dozens of cited articles, papers, etc. from across the web.  Each of these will have unique ideas rehashing your topic, but you won't have to look for them because wikipedia already has.

Great answer Jimmy. I find Wikipedia most useful when trying to orient to a new concept or gain context. I then use the additional links at the bottom of most entries to research additional resources.

As someone in the academic community I would agree. Too many of us are looking for shortcuts to the search for "truth" which is what academia suggests is the purpose of academic research. Encyclopedias are a good source for providing general understanding of a subject but often lack the important nuanced differences that are so critical for getting to the truth of a particular subject. Additionally, good researchers use multiple sources to obtain their insights as a means for cross-checking the literature on a particular subject. However, if you are going to bet your paycheck on the answer I would not bet it on an encyclopedia (of any sort) alone. I would rather us what are called refereed journals which are at least scrutinized by other subject matter experts in the the specific topic domain.

How about when a history professor lies? And how about when that professor uses those lies to flunk a student? Professorial dishonesty is a disease that robs students of their future and dignity. As I blogged on http://graysharborgop.blogspot.com/2012/05/academic-dishonesty-at-grays-harbor.html A quick check on Wikipedia revealed numerous sources of information to disprove tenured history professor Gary Murrell at Grays Harbor College. Then linking to those sources my son and I prepared a response detailing the lies the professor spouted (on paper).

though Wikipedia is undoubtedly the best but the anyone can edit articles which is an obvious advantage becomes a disadvantage in this case questioning the credibility of the source. in ,you will be highly embarrassed if you use Wikipedia as a source. they generally recommend Reuters.

Hello I am a student and swore by wikipedia when I was in highschool. My first year of study, my history of art teacher was clear: Wikipedia could not be cited as a source. I felt dismayed at the time but you really have to dig deep for your info, avoid wikipedia and I believe you achieve to make up your own thought about something by comparing different articles ..etc. and by this effort and process you retain a lot more from the subject you searched. Also at the bottom of a wikipedia page there is most of the time a long list of related sites and the sources on which the authors of the page based on.

Just use Google Scholar tab and search for published and respected sources. There are many instances of Wiki having allowed content from opinionated and ignorant admins that have failed to check the academic or prof. nature of the source. PEOPLE SHOULD TRY HARDER AND SEARCH APPROPRIATELY: NEVER HEARD OF KINDLE? SORRY; I MEAN A LIBRARY ;)

I'm not Jimmy Wales, but I find it ridiculous when professors tell me this. Their argument is: "anyone can edit Wikipedia. It's not a good source of information." I'm a web developer, so I tell them: just as anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, anyone can make a website. And they can put whatever content they want on it. Wikipedia is a GREAT way to find links to good information, and get an overview of a topic.

Wikipedia is actually nothing more than a fluid forum where ultimate editorial control belongs to a corps of administrators, most of whom act without real-world accountability because they don't reveal their real names, locations, and potential conflicts of interest. Encyclopedia Britanica may not even consider interviewing Wikipedia administrators for Encyclopedia Britanica.  Many admins at Wikipedia qualification is that they had been with Wikipedia for over six years.  Most academic institutions in the USA do not consider Wikipedia as an authoritative source.  For example Williams College Library on its web site (http://library.williams.edu/citing/wikipedia.php) has following for using Wikipedia   "Articles in Wikipedia may be well written and insightful, but they are not embedded in the world of scholarly discourse. Without knowing who wrote the article, it is more difficult to judge whether the author's writing is worthy of consideration, or to critique his or her motivations or qualifications. Without a known author, Wikipedia articles cannot be considered authoritative. "   Similarly most academic institutions recommend against Wikipedia.  Wikipedia could be anything but an Encyclopedia, though they try to disguise to be the one.