user120: Should the use of Wikipedia articles as source material be discouraged? 
I do not take it that such articles are appropriate sources and my opinion is that citing them is a bad practice. Thoughts?

user-1: Back when i was a student we were not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source in our assignments and projects. The reason that was given was that it was not reliable since everyone could post and edit articles on Wiki. Some users might not have the necessary skills to ensure that the content is of a certain validity and quality.
I think that if one is aware of this and has a critical approach to it then the Wiki can be used as a source. As all other text material it should not be trusted blindly.

user157: I personally have no problem with wiki links. I think that Wikipedia is pretty authorative. There is some research that says that it has about as many factual errors as the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's a hugely visible site and its vigorously community edited. I would be much less happy with an answer that relies on a quote from an obscure blog somewhere. That could be just a really outlying opinion from someone with a very particular perspective.
My only issue is when a question can be answered with one wiki link which really gives OP everything they need. But then that's a problem in the question rather than the answer.
As ever, just my opinion

user254: I suggest these guidelines:

Wikipedia is often not the best reference; I think I cite Wikipedia frequently but not usually (i.e. more often than not, my answers instead cite a different reference).
An answer should never be only a reference to Wikipedia, and nothing else.

I'm looking at my answer to this question as an example of how I have used Wikipedia.

If you reference Wikipedia (or indeed any other reference) then prefer to also quote a bit from the reference. People shouldn't need to read the reference in order to understand your answer (the reference should be a supplement to your answer). So, for example:

I wanted to mention the "Parable of the burning house" in my answer
I wasn't sure whether the OP would know the parable I was mentioning, so I wanted to include a link to further information
Wikipedia is convenient because it tells the parable and embeds it in an article which introduces upaya (skillful means).

If you reference Wikipedia (or any other reference) then explain why that reference is an answer to the OP's question (because the link between the reference and the question might not be obvious).
I often use Wikipedia whenever I want to define some vocabulary I use in my answer. For example I wanted to use the term "lie-to-children"; that's not a standard term so I included a hyperlink to explain it. If I Google for that phrase I find Wikipedia at the top of the search results, so embedding the link in my answer is a convenience to the reader.
Read the article you're referencing. Don't reference it if you don't agree with it, i.e. if it's not what you want to say.
My third reference to Wikipedia in that answer ("Some lineages also apparently have secrets...") was because that (alleged) fact is relevant to the answer, however Wikipedia is the only place where I've read that (and so Wikipedia is the only reference I have for that sentence). It's not a very good reference, but I hoped it's good enough to include as the third reference/article in an answer.

I know that Wikipedia has some problems (e.g. that it be edited at any time). Perhaps you wouldn't want to reference it in an scholarly answer (I'm not able to write scholarly answers and don't try to answer questions which seem to me to require a scholarly answer).
In summary I like to reference Wikipedia sometimes.

user715: Only my opinion stated here of course, not an absolute position:
As already stated, 

Any encyclopedia is a starting point for research, not an ending
  point. Wikipedia despite it's obvious susceptibility to mistakes is increasingly considered good enough evidence by
  many journalists, policy makers and researchers. Though not suitable
  as a primary source when writing a research paper, several research
  papers increasingly lean on Wikipedia as a tertiary source.

I can't say I prefer Wikipedia to an original source, or the other way round either. I tend to use whatever's apt for my answers.
When an answer draws from several sources and develops an overarching position, linking to Wikipedia makes more sense to me than citing 20 different extracts. This has the benefit of appealing to most readers who value brevity while still remaining a valid source of more information for readers who would like to dig deeper. I suspect the small portion of Wikipedia that deals with Buddhism is far less likely to fall prey to vandalism than the rest of Wikipedia, and the submissions are usually of a far higher quality. 
Voltaire, Confucius, Aristotle and several other classical philosophers have uttered a variation on the phrase "perfect is the enemy of good". The Buddha is also very pragmatic like this, I am reminded of the second arrow sutta where he recommends treating the arrow wound than searching to find the shooter.
Better to have more answers that can be superseded by better answers in the future, than no answers at all while waiting for the perfect answer.

What are the alternatives to Wikipedia? Certainly peer reviewed journals are no guarantee of quality if one reads what is being written about them by people who ought to know better than anyone.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief, Lancet
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine
"It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false" (source) (Dr. John Ioannidis, Professor, Stanford School of Medicine)
"Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis" How science goes wrong | The Economist
"...we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects..."Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science...

120: <p>Should the use of Wikipedia articles as source material be discouraged? </p>

<p>I do not take it that such articles are appropriate sources and my opinion is that citing them is a bad practice. Thoughts?</p>
 -1: <p>Back when i was a student we were not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source in our assignments and projects. The reason that was given was that it was not reliable since everyone could post and edit articles on Wiki. Some users might not have the necessary skills to ensure that the content is of a certain validity and quality.</p>

<p>I think that if one is aware of this and has a critical approach to it then the Wiki can be used as a source. As all other text material it should not be trusted blindly.</p>
 157: <p>I personally have no problem with wiki links. I think that Wikipedia is pretty authorative. There is <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm" rel="nofollow">some research</a> that says that it has about as many factual errors as the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's a hugely visible site and its vigorously community edited. I would be much less happy with an answer that relies on a quote from an obscure blog somewhere. That could be just a really outlying opinion from someone with a very particular perspective.</p>

<p>My only issue is when a question can be answered with one wiki link which really gives OP everything they need. But then that's a problem in the question rather than the answer.</p>

<p>As ever, just my opinion</p>
 254: <p>I suggest these guidelines:</p>

<ol>
<li>Wikipedia is <strong>often not the best reference</strong>; I think I cite Wikipedia frequently but not usually (i.e. more often than not, my answers instead cite a different reference).</li>
<li>An answer should <strong>never be only a reference to Wikipedia</strong>, and nothing else.</li>
</ol>

<p>I'm looking at <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8762/254">my answer to this question</a> as an example of how I have used Wikipedia.</p>

<ol start="3">
<li><p><strong>If you reference</strong> Wikipedia (or indeed any other reference) <strong>then prefer to also quote a bit</strong> from the reference. People shouldn't need to read the reference in order to understand your answer (the reference should be a supplement to your answer). So, for example:</p>

<ul>
<li>I wanted to mention the "Parable of the burning house" in my answer</li>
<li>I wasn't sure whether the OP would know the parable I was mentioning, so I wanted to include a link to further information</li>
<li>Wikipedia is convenient because it tells the parable and embeds it in an article which introduces <em>upaya</em> (skillful means).</li>
</ul></li>
<li><p>If you reference Wikipedia (or any other reference) then <strong>explain why that reference is an answer</strong> to the OP's question (because the link between the reference and the question might not be obvious).</p></li>
<li>I often use Wikipedia whenever I want to <strong>define some vocabulary</strong> I use in my answer. For example I wanted to use the term "lie-to-children"; that's not a standard term so I included a hyperlink to explain it. If I Google for that phrase I find Wikipedia at the top of the search results, so embedding the link in my answer is a convenience to the reader.</li>
<li><strong>Read the article</strong> you're referencing. Don't reference it if you don't agree with it, i.e. if it's not what you want to say.</li>
<li>My third reference to Wikipedia in that answer ("Some lineages also apparently have secrets...") was because that (alleged) fact is relevant to the answer, however Wikipedia is the only place where I've read that (and so Wikipedia is the only reference I have for that sentence). It's not a very good reference, but I hoped it's good enough to include as the third reference/article in an answer.</li>
</ol>

<p>I know that Wikipedia has some problems (e.g. that it be edited at any time). Perhaps you wouldn't want to reference it in an scholarly answer (I'm not able to write scholarly answers and don't try to answer questions which seem to me to require a scholarly answer).</p>

<p>In summary I like to reference Wikipedia sometimes.</p>
 715: <p>Only my opinion stated here of course, not an absolute position:</p>

<p>As <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/posts/comments/16683?noredirect=1">already stated</a>, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Any encyclopedia is a starting point for research, not an ending
  point. Wikipedia despite it's obvious susceptibility to mistakes is increasingly considered good enough evidence by
  many journalists, policy makers and researchers. Though not suitable
  as a primary source when writing a research paper, several research
  papers increasingly lean on Wikipedia as a tertiary source.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I can't say I prefer Wikipedia to an original source, or the other way round either. I tend to use whatever's apt for my answers.</p>

<p>When an answer draws from several sources and develops an overarching position, linking to Wikipedia makes more sense to me than citing 20 different extracts. This has the benefit of appealing to most readers who value brevity while still remaining a valid source of more information for readers who would like to dig deeper. I suspect the small portion of Wikipedia that deals with Buddhism is far less likely to fall prey to vandalism than the rest of Wikipedia, and the submissions are usually of a far higher quality. </p>

<p>Voltaire, Confucius, Aristotle and several other classical philosophers have uttered a variation on the phrase "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good" rel="nofollow noreferrer">perfect is the enemy of good</a>". The Buddha is also very pragmatic like this, I am reminded of the second arrow sutta where he recommends treating the arrow wound than searching to find the shooter.</p>

<p>Better to have more answers that can be superseded by better answers in the future, than no answers at all while waiting for the perfect answer.</p>

<hr>

<p>What are the alternatives to Wikipedia? Certainly peer reviewed journals are no guarantee of quality if one reads what is being written about them by people who ought to know better than anyone.</p>

<p><strong><em>“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”</em></strong> <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief, Lancet</a></p>

<p><strong><em>“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”</em></strong>  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_Angell" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dr. Marcia Angell</a>, <a href="http://is.gd/GtnzAn" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine</a></p>

<p><strong><em>"It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false"</em></strong> (<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a>) (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dr. John Ioannidis, Professor, Stanford School of Medicine</a>)</p>

<p><strong><em>"Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis"</em></strong> <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong" rel="nofollow noreferrer">How science goes wrong | The Economist</a></p>

<p>"<strong><em>...we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects...</em></strong>"<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science...</a></p>
