Wikipedia, the online nonprofit encyclopedia, laid out a simple plan to ensure its website continues to be supported in the AI era, despite its declining traffic.

  • Revan343
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Which is ridiculous, everybody knows that the reason you should be banned from referencing Wikipedia as a source is because an encyclopedia is not a source

    • arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Uh, it’s a tertiary source. It’s still a source, just not one you should be directly citing. They’re great for finding other sources though.

      • Aneb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I got a F for plagiarism when I looked up the wiki and dived deeper into the sources and tried to incorporate the ideas and not trying to copy word for word. Apparently 65% was flagged as direct plagiarism from Wiki when I used the sources to write my essay. I was in 6th grade

      • Revan343
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        If we’re being pedantic, yeah, but ‘source’ without qualifiers to me would refer to the one you’d cite. Wikipedia is great for finding general information, and then as you say, finding the source for that information (and also generally a lot more depth to the summary that’s on Wiki).

        Tl;dr use Wiki, don’t cite Wiki