#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](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/21772/12937), 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?

<br>


Read more:

- [Is Wikipedia a reliable source?](https://medicalsciences.meta.stackexchange.com/q/184/99) on Medical Sciences SE 
- [Reliability of Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) on Wikipedia
- [Is Psychology Today a credible source?](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2362/12937)