This question comes on the back of answers https://psychology.stackexchange.com/a/28001/7604 and https://psychology.stackexchange.com/a/28000/7604 where the answer only has links to Wikipedia articles.
To me, these answers are weak anyway, but I wondered about general consensus considering I commented putting my view across on those answers. Was I harsh to request stronger, more reliable references?
As pointed out in https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2436/7604
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.
Personally, I agree, and if we accepted Wikipedia generally, is that going to lead to Psychology Today being acceptable in a general sense?
What is the consensus?
For a balanced view, see
- 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?