Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • 14
    I respectfully disagree. Stack Overflow is not like Wikipedia in this respect. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It collects information rather than generating them. That’s why it’s a bad original source – it isn’t one, by definition. Stack Overflow is completely different: here, content isn’t merely collected but generated – take my benchmark example. The benchmark code, along with its results, would fit perfectly as a source in a scientific publication even if doesn’t merit its own scientific publication (but only because of the limited scope). In a way, SO is even peer-reviewed. Commented May 13, 2010 at 14:12
  • 2
    Hmmmm. I'm not an academic person but is this comparison really entirely valid? In addition to encyclopedic information, SO is also a platform for new solutions, theories and otherwise "original content" that is not published anywhere else. Plus, different from an encyclopedia, there may be the need to quote Stack Overflow contributions for example in a sociological context when the SO contribution is the actual object of the publication being written. (Update, Konrad beat me to the punch with similar arguments :) Commented May 13, 2010 at 14:14
  • 1
    There are exceptions, of course, but generally the solutions posted on StackOverflow are implementations of patterns better documented elsewhere, or samples that demonstrate a programming feature where you'd do better to point to the original documentation for that feature. ...hmm... promoting this to my answer. Commented May 13, 2010 at 20:06
  • 1
    Another thing to consider is that, unlike even Wikipedia, there is no framework in place for attribution or verifiability other than the original poster's word. While you may find that an answer will work, unless the author chose to include citations (which is what you would have to reference in an academic article anyway), you have no idea where the author got it from: whether he synthesized it himself or ripped it off/"borrowed" it from someone else. Preserving the chain of knowledge is important, especially in an academic setting. Commented Dec 10, 2010 at 22:25
  • (Yes, I'm late to the discussion.) Do keep other SE sites than SO in mind. CrossValidated, for instance, generates content that is certainly citeable, as a small incremental advance in statistical knowledge. Often answers reflect "statistical folklore" that is not immediately obvious, but is not in itself sufficiently important to warrant its own "standard" publication - but certainly citeable. I recently had a paper published that cited two CV threads, and it definitely was the better for it, and I wouldn't have known what else to cite there. Commented Feb 4, 2017 at 16:57