Wikipedia talk:Don't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia

Title is misleading

Wikipedia is generally quite accurate, but it is not reliable "as a source". That is the real meaning, so that's what we should say. The current title implies lack of accuracy, but research shows that idea is generally false. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The current title is precise and concise. I see no obvious way to improve it. Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the title is ambiguous and imprecise as the current framing implies that Wikipedia is inaccurate, which is generally not true, especially for medical and scientific subjects. That aspect is not a settled matter and is only part of why we do not recommend its use "as a source". We do not think it is good "as a source" because it's crowdsourced, and we apply that metric to everything that is crowdsourced, even if they are always 100% perfectly accurate.

It also doesn't specifically address the main point, which is that we do not think it is good "AS a source", as in to "use AS a reference". That "as" is very important. We cover this in the article, but the title misses it. Even the nutshell spells this out: "This page in a nutshell: Do not use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article." We even tell people to not use Wikipedia "as a source" in their own articles and school papers. We tell them it's great as a starting place for general information, but to use the RS we have used to create our content.

We cannot assume, especially for those with other mother tongues than English, that our ambiguous title necessarily "implies" this point, and it obviously doesn't, because that is one of the main reasons we constantly get complaints and struggle with people who think the title means that Wikipedia is horribly inaccurate, and they find the proof in the title of this guideline. The title clearly tells them Wikipedia is unreliable, which they can logically interpret as "inaccurate" since the two words are synonyms.

We have brought these problems on ourselves. We have damaged our own reputation. This is a PR nightmare.

If we just added "as" to the title, we'd save a lot of work and misunderstanding: "Wikipedia is not reliable as a source". That's what we should say. Leaving it to the nutshell isn't good enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot, I think Valjean may have something here. I’ve always understood what this means and that’s gotten in the way of me seeing what it actually says. I can’t see that adding an “as” would change the meaning we want to get across to readers but it would avoid suggesting that Wikipedia is unreliable. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It would avoid suggesting that Wikipedia is inaccurate. We do mention how it can be inaccurate, but it's usually not horribly inaccurate, and compared to other encyclopedias, we rate at the top for accuracy. I am not suggesting that inaccuracies are not a problem, but we should not hand our enemies the tools to claim we are a horrible source in the sense of "horribly inaccurate". That's the "PR nightmare". (Research shows that is not true.) We then have to constantly explain the issue.

This change would obviate that problem and save us lots of time. Our main point here is that no source that is user-generated, including Wikipedia, is useful as a source. Period. "Wikipedia is not reliable as a source". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems like a straightforward fix to me. I'm sure some less good-faith people will still interpret it as "Wikipedia is unreliable," but it could reduce misunderstanding among good-faith readers. Politanvm ^talk 17:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. We constantly waste time with bad-faith (and other) people because they are using a weapon we handed to them. That fact is what caught my attention, and I decided we should fix that issue. It's a very simple fix. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Just no 99.209.16.246 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed not a reliable source even in the general sense, in the sense that it should never be taken at face value because of the nature of how and by whom it's written. (That's also why it's not reliable in the specialized sense in the first place!) Anyone who values accuracy and empirical truth has to have a critical view towards the text and know how to evaluate and verify it whenever reading a Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia itself admitting that it's not reliable is effective advocacy for that critical attitude precisely because it might come as a surprise. Quite the opposite of a PR nightmare I would argue. Nardog (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

As you can see from my comments, I largely agree with you. My concern is that the title gives ammunition to our enemies when they claim that we are horribly inaccurate, a claim that has been proven to be false. The addition of "as" to the title does not change the content.

The main point here is that we should NEVER use Wikipedia as a source. That's a 100% absolute. The second point is "why", and that's because it's crowdsourced and errors can creep in. That is not a 100% absolute, but quite variable reason for why the main point is absolute. Our featured articles, for example, are pretty solid.

The two points are not equal, and that is something we could develop better. False and bad faith claims that we're horribly inaccurate and completely untrustworthy should be met and debunked in this article. The research exists. We have a whole effing article about this (Reliability of Wikipedia) which isn't even mentioned once! That's a travesty. (Now added as a See also link.) This essay deserves a sectional summary from that article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that it took until 2022 for this discussion to start, and equally interesting that this discussion ended after less than two days. If I may put my two cents in. Personally, I'd lean towards "generally quite accurate" not being reliable enough to be a reliable source. In other words, not reliable "as a source" anywhere. Not just too unreliable "for another Wikipedia article" or "for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia", but too unreliable for anyone who is looking for a "reliable source" and is considering Wikipedia. So, I actually came here to suggest removing "for another Wikipedia article" and "for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia". What I do agree with is that the title is ambiguous and imprecise, but for a different reason. It does not imply "that Wikipedia is inaccurate", but that it is "not a reliable source" in general, even though the article content clearly adds the 'inception' context of using Wikipedia content as references for Wikipedia content. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:5DA7:8AF2:DA90:EFF6 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2023

There is a typo. "1. Wikipedia pages often cite reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources." It should be changed to "1. Wikipedia pages often cite reliable secondary sources, which get data from primary sources." Memer15151 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not an error. Secondary sources often filter and vet what they find in primary sources. We like that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: not a typo. M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2024

I want to put more info on this 99.209.16.246 (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done You need to say exactly what changes you want to be made. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Shadow311 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2024

So i belive that some of this information is VERY wrong and should be changed asap because this information was posted years ago in is exeremely outdated 64.88.18.16 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source → Wikipedia:Don't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia – This essay is about Wikipedia not being an RS for our purposes. However, the title used has very unfortunate wording that would at first glance suggest Wikipedia is unreliable for general use. Even though we put that orange warning box on the page to try and fix this confusion, I am still seeing this essay linked on social media as an admission by Wikipedia that it should not be used or trusted. In this decade, Wikipedia has been praised repeatedly by RSes for its reliability and accuracy (especially compared to "AI Overviews"). The title should be changed right away, so that it stops alienating readers. I propose "Don't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia", which is much less ambiguous about the subject. 3df (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support - logical and good Red Slash 17:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Support per above. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Support per above - it makes more sense. Wikipedia is of itself unreliable, but the current title is too ambiguous such that the majority of Gen Alpha who stare at their iPads all day, fall victim to AI deception, and not spend a single minute on doing their own research believe that Wikipedia is actually something they can and should cite on their research papers when they go to college. Changing the title and bringing this to attention should alert a greater amount of the general public. HarukaAmaranth 13:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support because the proposed title is clearer and less prone to misinterpretation than the current one. --Zander251 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above, however, I do think there should be something to tell the general public that it's bad to cite Wikipedia in general TheTrainsKid (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  • It's not bad to cite Wikipedia in general. If someone got their information from Wikipedia, they should cite it to show that, and if someone thinks some article on Wikipedia provides a good presentation of a subject, they should encourage others to read that article so others can learn from it too. Astute readers should be able to understand the merits and shortcomings of what they read on Wikipedia, including the possibility that its content can change. Citations to it should ordinarily include a mention of a specific version (e.g., identifying the date of the version of an article that they used). If someone sees a citation to Wikipedia, they can not only see what it says, but they can also look up the sources that it cites (unlike many other publications that don't cite sources). And when copying significant amounts of Wikipedia content, citing Wikipedia is required. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Support as it was confusing to me at first glance as well :) PolarClimates (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.