Citing Wikipedia as a reference is not considered a good practice because Wikipedia:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Wikipedia is a tertiary source that summarizes and aggregates information from primary and secondary sources, so it should not be treated as an original, authoritative reference for academic or professional work.

1) Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Source hierarchy: primary (original data/reports), secondary (analyses/reviews), tertiary (summaries/compilations).
- Scholarly standards: prefer primary/peer-reviewed sources for claims, because they provide original evidence and traceable methodology.
- Wikipedia policies: crowd-sourced editing, changeable content, and reliance on cited sources rather than presenting original research.

2) Step-by-step reasoning
- Identify what Wikipedia is: an online encyclopedia that collects and summarizes material from other sources.
- Determine why citation matters: credibility requires traceability to original data or peer-reviewed analysis.
- Compare Wikipedia to ideal citations: since Wikipedia compiles others’ content, it cannot substitute for the primary evidence behind a claim.
- Conclude that citing Wikipedia is discouraged because it is not the original source and its content can change.

3) Intermediate steps / calculations
- No numerical calculations apply. Logical steps: (a) Claim in Wikipedia → (b) Look at Wikipedia’s references → (c) Cite the original reference (preferred). This shows the intermediate verification step that makes primary sources preferable.

4) Why the correct answer is correct
- Saying “is not original source material, but rather a clearinghouse of information” accurately captures that Wikipedia aggregates and summarizes other works. Because of that aggregation, it lacks the original methods, data, or peer review necessary for authoritative citation.

5) Why other options are incorrect
- “Leveraging a neutral point of view.” This is actually a Wikipedia policy and not a reason to avoid citing it.  
- “Offers limited content.” Incorrect—Wikipedia often contains extensive content.  
- “Hosts unopinionated entries.” Entries aim for neutrality but can reflect bias or incomplete perspectives; moreover this doesn’t explain why it shouldn’t be cited.  
- “Is proprietary in nature.” Incorrect—Wikipedia is freely licensed (e.g., CC BY-SA), not proprietary.

6) Conclusion
Therefore, the best choice is: is not original source material, but rather a clearinghouse of information. This matches the provided answer.

Citing Wikipedia as a reference is not considered a good practice because Wikipedia:单项选择题

类似问题

Question at position 8 If I use a generative AI tool like ChatGPT for brainstorming, I don't need to cite its use; I only need to cite generative AI if I directly quote the generated material.TrueFalse

Do you need to provide a citation if you use the number for koala death rates that you found on the Australian Koala Foundation website in your assignment?

What does NOT need to be cited and referenced? (Refer to When do you need to reference?)

A project has a required return of 12.6 percent, an initial cash outflow of $42,100, and cash inflows of $16,500 in Year 1, $11,700 in Year 2, and $10,400 in Year 4. What is the net present value?

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单