> However, sometimes it happens that you read first about a topic on wikipedia, and worked something out on the information you found there, before you had time to consult wikipedia's sources. In this case you definitely should cite wikipedia.
I was advised to always cite the primary source, even if I learnt of something in a secondary source, eg. lit review or Wikipedia. The reason being that if the reader wants to follow up on it, it's the quickest path. I'd say it's also just good practice to credit the original authors for their work.
Citing Wikipedia also puts the reader in the uncomfortable position of either taking your word for something, or having to go through Wikipedia's sources themselves to verify something.
> Citing Wikipedia also puts the reader in the uncomfortable position of either taking your word for something, or having to go through Wikipedia's sources themselves to verify something.
The problem is that Wikipedia is a secondary source. If I cite wikipedia you need to go through the reference list in the end of the article to find the primary source for the fact that I cited. If I had instead cited that source directly you wouldn't need to go through this extra step.
I was advised to always cite the primary source, even if I learnt of something in a secondary source, eg. lit review or Wikipedia. The reason being that if the reader wants to follow up on it, it's the quickest path. I'd say it's also just good practice to credit the original authors for their work.
Citing Wikipedia also puts the reader in the uncomfortable position of either taking your word for something, or having to go through Wikipedia's sources themselves to verify something.