Recently, I made an answer to one of the questions of this site. When searching the sources with the aim of finding the answer, I came across a complete and referenced answer from Wikipedia. As you know:

1- Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License which allows sharing and/or remixing under certain conditions.

2- Texts in Wikipedia has no certain authors. The text might be edited by almost every one.

3- Verifiability is one of the three core content policies of this encyclopedia and probably most of texts are referenced using citations in text.

Note the answer contains that no plagiarism or copy-right violation, based on the above points. Surprisingly, a mod deleted my answer and commented as such:

enter image description here

He has mentioned two points in his comment:

Firstly the answers should not contain plagiarism or copy-right violation and as you know the text is free for sharing!

Secondly, the quotes must be clearly attributed to their respective authors. As I said, texts in wikipedia has no certain author. Moreover, I mentioned at the end of my answer that the answer had been quoted from the Wikipedia!

There is no plagiarism, there's no copy-right violation! So, Why shouldn't we use materials mentioned in Wikipedia?

  • Did you even read through the discussion in the first link of that comment?
    – goldPseudo Mod
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 18:09
  • 2
    @goldPseudo Of course I read them. Did you even read through my question? Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 18:12
  • @goldPseudo It is a special case of Wikipedia ! Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 18:16
  • The very first point in the comment clearly states that "we require that answers consist primarily of the words of their author," with a link to the relevant discussion. This question is exactly asking if you can post an answer from a third-party resource with no original content, with absolutely no attempt to show why this case should be any different from the discussion that we've already had, or why the points brought up in that discussion should not apply here, or any indication at all that you even bothered to read it.
    – goldPseudo Mod
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 18:18
  • 1
    @goldPseudo Expecting only Original research is a very harming opinion. How do you expect the users to be expert scholars? Should all of them be expert scholars? Even those scholars used to mention the work of others in their books and articles. The difference: Wikipedia materials has no author and etc. Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 18:39
  • Stack Exchange is a platform for expert communities to provide expert answers. If you lack the expertise to answer a question yourself, you shouldn't be answering the question in the first place.
    – goldPseudo Mod
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 18:43
  • @MohammadHossein Wikipedia articles do have authors. E.g.: en.wikipedia.org/w/… Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 18:46
  • @goldPseudo So, the visitors (who seek their answers) must be expert! right? I mean, is the site going to service only the experts? Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 18:46
  • @BleedingFingers which of them is the author of the first two sentences of the article? Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 18:48


Browse other questions tagged .