While most academics and journalists, just like everybody else, heavily relies on Wikipedia for both private and professional purposes, it is quite common in among both these groups to scold anyone who openly admits doing so. For example, many lecturers tend to make fun of students citing Wikipedia and pride themselves in educating them that “Wikipedia is not a source” and, thus, cannot be cited in a seminar paper.
I not only strongly disagree with both tone and substance of such statements, but I regularly have to deal with insecurity and uncertainty among students with respect to the proper use of Wikipedia. The following list presents the five main points I try to bring across in such situations.
First, Wikipedia is just as good or just as bad a source as other encyclopedias. So it’s good for an initial (conceptual) clarification, bad as a source for a seminar paper. Other encyclopedias are also rarely a suitable source.
Second, Wikipedia is one of the most citable online sources of all. This is partly due to the possibility of citing every single page in the exact version read at a specific time via permalink.
Third, Wikipedia can of course serve as a starting point for research. Above all because statements on Wikipedia must be substantiated; a link to a scientific study often serves as proof in this regard.
Fourth, especially in (ideologically) controversial and dynamic subject areas (e.g. Ukraine war, Covid, etc.), there is hardly a better source to get a first, rough overview – because of the topicality but also because controversies are often broken down as such.
Fifth, in all of this, there are of course certain systematic biases in Wikipedia knowledge (such as a male bias among authors); such biases also exist in every other source of knowledge, but they are rarely as well documented and reflected elsewhere.
All in all: don’t be afraid to use and even cite Wikipedia.
ConJunction 