Timeline for Is wikipedia authoring here necessary and allowed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2012 at 3:15 | vote | accept | Werner Schmitt | ||
| Jan 10, 2012 at 19:18 | comment | added | Poshpaws | I am not saying ban all links to wikipedia, but it certainly should not be treated as a primary source. Try this exercise: go to a wikipedia page on a topic in which you are an expert and count the inaccuracies. There will probably be many. As I said, use it as a jumping off point and nothing more (in my opinion). | |
| Jan 10, 2012 at 17:49 | comment | added | LanceLafontaine | Definitely agree with above. | |
| Jan 10, 2012 at 16:37 | comment | added | Werner Schmitt | @Rory see my analysis of the blog post in my answer. IMHO backing up your answer with wikipedia is fine, but the current accepted answer is mainly a collection of so much links that I can not really check if the information in those is correct and backing up the author. IMHO Aleksandra Kos answer is better explaining the problem and process of synthetic biogenesis, but earned only half the votes, I bet mainly for being 2 days later, there wasn't a competing answer... my main concern is quality by competition, not a general ban of WP links or self-authoring on those questoins | |
| Jan 9, 2012 at 22:48 | comment | added | Rory M | Strongly agree with the direct quoting of Wikipedia being undesirable. | |
| Jan 9, 2012 at 20:11 | history | answered | Poshpaws | CC BY-SA 3.0 |