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.

  • arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 days 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
      ·
      2 days 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@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days 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