Whether quoting newspapers is acceptable in academic research or not usually depends on context. You can do it if relevant, but proceed with caution. Usually requires justification. You need to differentiate reporting of fact and editorial bias.
Wiki and Google are conduits for information not sources. They simply link a query to an answer. Wiki is not a reliable source of information within its narrative, only in its accredited links. Google is only a means of finding a link, but it is corrupted by its commercial model. Anyone who wants to present a credible paper needs to conduct proper qualified research and not cobble something together via internet searches.
To be fair though, most journals and academic resources are now on the Internet. They aren't necessarily free, but online nevertheless.
Nothing wrong with the use of online resources. Everything wrong with quoting wiki or blogs, you may as well use facebook.
I'd certainly not rely on either to formulate a balanced view. Can be a useful starting point sometimes though, if you're not being particularly academic about it.
Problem with wikipedia is it can be edited by anybody at any time. I once saw that Simon Walton's page had his middle name changed to "****er", I don't think we'll ever find out who could have done such a horribleitwasOLMwasn'titcomeonadmitit.
I do like that Sriracha sauce. I think I might have to read this thread again. Isn't it something to do with Nazis? How the **** did I become a Nazi? I'm not a Nazi
Wikipedia is actually an excellent source of information. It's strange that dismissing its reliability is so popular. It actually holds itself to a higher standard of accuracy, verifiability and accountability than most other online or offline sources. In general, it's quite academic in its referencing of other reliable materials where possible, and unlike most other academic sources it's presented in an easily accessible and digestible format. Yes, it can be edited by anyone, but that's a strength more than it is a weakness, because there are far more people moderating, maintaining and improving it than people who could ever be arsed to edit it maliciously, and it's easy to tell on the relatively rare occasions that something untrue gets published and is typically corrected quickly. I think it's a sort of misplaced snobbery to sneer at something that gives so many people access to so much knowledge.
