[WikiEN-l] Are phone books reliable sources?

Fri Jun 2 16:52:57 UTC 2006

On 6/2/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 6/2/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/2/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > > I essentially agree.  Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is
> > > not a reliable source.  On the other hand "Scientific American" for this
> > > month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.
> >
> > A good example - it depends how you use Wikipedia whether you would
> > call it a "reliable source". If it makes a definitive, unsourced
> > claim, I would not call it reliable. If it provides the source further
> > upstream, and you check them out, it's a very useful source.
> >
> If you're checking the source "further upstream", you should be citing
> the original source, not the encyclopedia article.

I just looked at the new Scientific American (ah, the advantages of
working in a library) and skimmed the article.  I may have missed it
but I don't see any instances of the author citing Wikipedia as a
source.  The article does include a link to Wikipedia under a list of
"More to Explore" weblinks, which seems an entirely proper use.