<p><a href="Too%20easy,%20I%20suppose.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol, why should a source be looked down upon because it was too easy? Free flow of information is a laudable goal.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember why the internet was invented? To share scientific information. Why else do you think the government put so much public funds into it?</p>
<p>I would <em>never, ever, ever</em> cite any encyclopedia in an academic paper, and expect it to be accepted by a professor. Wikipedia is great for looking things up quick-and-dirty, but it's not an academic source. Neither is Encarta, or Britannica, or anything else like it.</p>
<p>It's really not that difficult to find and cite scholarly sources from the Internet. It's called JSTOR. Your university should provide it, free. Learn it. Live it. Love it.</p>
<p>(I'm also an admin on the English Wikipedia.)</p>
<p>never site an encyclopedia...</p>
<p>wikipedia is a fine place to start, but you need to expand. As others have mentioned, the footnotes can be useful.</p>
<p>I think the issue is that it's way too general, and not that Wiki is bad, but as a source it's less reliable than other more specific ones. If you're to research current US economics, it's much better to use the Federal/Government websites rather than wiki. </p>
<p>For example, if you want to quote that "3000000 jobs were lost during the first quater" it's better to find that on the government unemployment statistics rather than Wiki. </p>
<p>Although, Wiki is probably right but it's like using the wrong tools.</p>