3
$\begingroup$

Let's consider this post as a study case. I think, the question is fully answered on the wikipedia page linked in the comments.

A one-link-only answer is usually not accepted and I don't feel like rephrasing everything that is said on the wikipedia page. So how can we deal with this question? We cannot close a post because the answer exists somewhere else. We cannot close a post as a duplicate of a wiki page. Should it be closed as too broad? Should someone write a one-link-only answer? Should we leave this post unanswered?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I would give the OP some time to respond to your comment. I'm pretty sure he'll see it, as according to his profile he was last seen 3 hours ago (~2 hours before you posted your comment, and this question). If for some reason he doesn't respond in a day or so, then Unclear What You're Asking is probably the best close reason IMO, because we don't know if he's read the wiki article, and we don't know exactly what he's asking. $\endgroup$
    – MattDMo
    Jan 9, 2015 at 2:39

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

Though we keep using the term "Available on Wikipedia" for trivial, it has to be noted that wikipedia has grown a lot and some articles are every elaborate and detailed. Some journal (Landes Bioscience if I am not wrong) puts the information of your paper in a wikipedia article. Many active researches update wikipedia pages related to their topics.

Which means just because a topic has a wikipedia page does not mean it is trivial.

I think it is for the experienced users to judge if a question is trivial or not. If it is not trivial and has a wiki article it is best to get the actual references (doi indexed) from wikipedia and cite them.

So I think link only answer is okay if the article cited is doi indexed and the article is the exact answer of the question.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I agree that just because something is on wikipedia doesn't mean that it is trivial. To me, the main indication that a full answer on wikipedia gives, is that the question probably lacks in background and that the poster has been lazy. $\endgroup$
    – fileunderwater
    Jan 10, 2015 at 13:32
5
$\begingroup$

My $0.02: If it's a good question, but you don't have time (or the desire) to answer it fully, just toss it an upvote and leave it alone. Maybe leave a comment with the wiki link (as you did) so the next person who comes along who does have the time to kill, and maybe a hankering for reputation points, has a jumping-off point to start from.

In my opinion the fact that the answer is easy to find on Wikipedia does not make the question worth closing. If the question should be closed based on its own merits - if it is, in fact, hard to tell what the asker is looking for - then naturally it should be closed. But the question shouldn't be judged on the quality of its answers (or lack thereof).

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I particularly like the " question shouldn't be judged on the quality of its answers". Unfortunately, questions are often judged based on the answers they got. $\endgroup$
    – Remi.b
    Jan 9, 2015 at 18:27
0
$\begingroup$

In situations like this; I typically will provide a synopsis of the answer on the other site. Plus I will link to other sources if I can find them; this way the answer can be validated (I try to get validation, especially when dealing with Wikipedia).

Once I have contributed all that, I will up-vote other's answers and comment - as I see fit.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .