#What about Wikipedia?

Some express that Wikipedia should only be used as supportive resources, as it is volatile for edit and frequently circularly referenced. However, for terminology questions, I feel that it is suffice. Frequently such questions are asked from non-professional, and citing journal papers may be overkill.

In this example question, the OP seems to be non-professional. After I suggest in the comment to lookup a term, the OP confirms that this is what they need. Now:

• We don't want answers as comments, since they can't be downvoted
• Writing an answer with proper literature review from journal papers are intimidating for non-professional users (me included)
• Wikipedia sometimes can do a better job than I can do, in both the knowledge it presents and the organization of that knowledge
• Professional answers are not necessary for OPs, and may even be overkill. They just need to have a good direction

So I think for questions from non-professional using Wikipedia is fine. It has links to other concepts, which is a bonus.

One concern is that if we accept Wikipedia for non-professional questions, then what about other resources: TED talks, random blogs, magazines, Psychology Today?

Read more:

• Is Wikipedia a reliable source? on Medical Sciences SE
• Are there instances where citing Wikipedia is allowed? on Academia SE
• Reliability of Wikipedia on Wikipedia
• Is Psychology Today a credible source?

What about Wikipedia?

Some express that Wikipedia should only be used as supportive resources, as it is volatile for edit and frequently circularly referenced. However, for terminology questions, I feel that it is suffice. Frequently such questions are asked from non-professional, and citing journal papers may be overkill.

In this example question, the OP seems to be non-professional. After I suggest in the comment to lookup a term, the OP confirms that this is what they need. Now:

• We don't want answers as comments, since they can't be downvoted
• Writing an answer with proper literature review from journal papers are intimidating for non-professional users (me included)
• Wikipedia sometimes can do a better job than I can do, in both the knowledge it presents and the organization of that knowledge
• Professional answers are not necessary for OPs, and may even be overkill. They just need to have a good direction

So I think for questions from non-professional using Wikipedia is fine. It has links to other concepts, which is a bonus.

One concern is that if we accept Wikipedia for non-professional questions, then what about other resources: TED talks, random blogs, magazines, Psychology Today?

Read more:

• Is Wikipedia a reliable source? on Medical Sciences SE
• Are there instances where citing Wikipedia is allowed? on Academia SE
• Reliability of Wikipedia on Wikipedia
• Is Psychology Today a credible source?

#What about Wikipedia?

Some express that Wikipedia should only be used as supportive resources, as it is volatile for edit and frequently circularly referenced. However, for terminology questions, I feel that it is suffice. Frequently such questions are asked from non-professional, and citing journal papers may be overkill.

In this example question, the OP seems to be non-professional. After I suggest in the comment to lookup a term, the OP confirms that this is what they need. Now:

• We don't want answers as comments, since they can't be downvoted
• Writing an answer with proper literature review from journal papers are intimidating for non-professional users (me included)
• Professional answers are not necessary for OPs, and may even be overkill

So I think for questions from non-professional using Wikipedia is fine. It has links to other concepts, which is a bonus.

One concern is that if we accept Wikipedia for non-professional questions, then what about other resources: TED talks, blogs, magazines, Psychology Today?

Read more:

• Is Wikipedia a reliable source? on Medical Sciences SE
• Are there instances where citing Wikipedia is allowed? on Academia SE
• Reliability of Wikipedia on Wikipedia
• Is Psychology Today a credible source?

#What about Wikipedia?

Some express that Wikipedia should only be used as supportive resources, as it is volatile for edit and frequently circularly referenced. However, for terminology questions, I feel that it is suffice. Frequently such questions are asked from non-professional, and citing journal papers may be overkill.

In this example question, the OP seems to be non-professional. After I suggest in the comment to lookup a term, the OP confirms that this is what they need. Now:

• We don't want answers as comments, since they can't be downvoted
• Writing an answer with proper literature review from journal papers are intimidating for non-professional users (me included)
• Wikipedia sometimes can do a better job than I can do, in both the knowledge it presents and the organization of that knowledge
• Professional answers are not necessary for OPs, and may even be overkill. They just need to have a good direction

So I think for questions from non-professional using Wikipedia is fine. It has links to other concepts, which is a bonus.

One concern is that if we accept Wikipedia for non-professional questions, then what about other resources: TED talks, random blogs, magazines, Psychology Today?

Read more:

• Is Wikipedia a reliable source? on Medical Sciences SE
• Are there instances where citing Wikipedia is allowed? on Academia SE
• Reliability of Wikipedia on Wikipedia
• Is Psychology Today a credible source?

#What about Wikipedia?

Some express that Wikipedia should only be used as supportive resources, as it is volatile for edit and frequently circularly referenced. However, for terminology questions, I feel that it is suffice. Frequently such questions are asked from non-professional, and citing journal papers may be overkill.

In this example question, the OP seems to be non-professional. After I suggest in the comment to lookup a term, the OP confirms that this is what they need. Now:

• We don't want answers as comments, since they can't be downvoted
• Writing an answer with proper literature review from journal papers are intimidating for non-professional users (me included)
• Professional answers are not necessary for OPs, and may even be overkill

So I think for questions from non-professional using Wikipedia is fine. It has links to other concepts, which is a bonus.

One concern is that if we accept Wikipedia for non-professional questions, then what about other resources: TED talks, blogs, magazines, Psychology Today?

Read more:

• Is Wikipedia a reliable source? on Medical Sciences SE
• Reliability of Wikipedia on Wikipedia
• Is Psychology Today a credible source?

#What about Wikipedia?

Some express that Wikipedia should only be used as supportive resources, as it is volatile for edit and frequently circularly referenced. However, for terminology questions, I feel that it is suffice. Frequently such questions are asked from non-professional, and citing journal papers may be overkill.

In this example question, the OP seems to be non-professional. After I suggest in the comment to lookup a term, the OP confirms that this is what they need. Now:

• We don't want answers as comments, since they can't be downvoted
• Writing an answer with proper literature review from journal papers are intimidating for non-professional users (me included)
• Professional answers are not necessary for OPs, and may even be overkill

So I think for questions from non-professional using Wikipedia is fine. It has links to other concepts, which is a bonus.

One concern is that if we accept Wikipedia for non-professional questions, then what about other resources: TED talks, blogs, magazines, Psychology Today?

Read more:

• Is Wikipedia a reliable source? on Medical Sciences SE
• Are there instances where citing Wikipedia is allowed? on Academia SE
• Reliability of Wikipedia on Wikipedia
• Is Psychology Today a credible source?