When it comes to citing online, Wikipedia is one of your best choices. Don't rely on what some professors say (It's not a wikipedia link, but will it last?) about Wikipedia's unprofessional and bias content. A good blog entry has different criteria from an academic paper. It's important for blogs to have links that won't unexpectedly "break" (not work) while providing the reader with organized information.
I was adding links to a blog, when I came to the conundrum of longevity of internet sites. When linking, you have to judge more than the site content: you need to judge the link itself. It's a major deterrent for the reader when a link doesn't work. It's like a mis-cited example on a paper that causes the reader to lose trust in your assertions. Of course not everyone clicks all the links, but if they do, it could expose the entry as poorly cited or even worse...outdated.
For now, I can think of more pros than cons for linking to Wikipedia entries. First, Wikipedia is a major site that won't collapse anytime soon (at least not without you knowing). Where as smaller sites might close down or redesign the site without you knowing, skewing your links in the process. They'll be broken and they might go unnoticed for a long time.
Second, you want your readers to actually click and read the links. Most people appreciate organized cliff notes of a topic, so they can read up on it quickly and return to the original blog without embarking on a long off-site topical tangent (link to a complicated Astrophysics site? No thanks...). Of course, if your entry is referencing to a specific topical discourse you might want to use an "edu" site, but then make sure to check your links down the line. Because who knows how long till a professor will be replaced along with his school Web-space.
I'm not giving Wikipedia a 100% approval, but I do think its a reliable resource to inform your reader while keeping their attention. The only real problematic 'Con' I can think of is that the little sites are missing out on the SEO of having outsider links. It can be like shopping at Walmart, when your local grocery shop could use your support more.
On a future note, when Google creates a virtual library of all the books in the world, this could be a moot point. Certainly students won't have any excuses for not linking to the real sources.
I was adding links to a blog, when I came to the conundrum of longevity of internet sites. When linking, you have to judge more than the site content: you need to judge the link itself. It's a major deterrent for the reader when a link doesn't work. It's like a mis-cited example on a paper that causes the reader to lose trust in your assertions. Of course not everyone clicks all the links, but if they do, it could expose the entry as poorly cited or even worse...outdated.
For now, I can think of more pros than cons for linking to Wikipedia entries. First, Wikipedia is a major site that won't collapse anytime soon (at least not without you knowing). Where as smaller sites might close down or redesign the site without you knowing, skewing your links in the process. They'll be broken and they might go unnoticed for a long time.
Second, you want your readers to actually click and read the links. Most people appreciate organized cliff notes of a topic, so they can read up on it quickly and return to the original blog without embarking on a long off-site topical tangent (link to a complicated Astrophysics site? No thanks...). Of course, if your entry is referencing to a specific topical discourse you might want to use an "edu" site, but then make sure to check your links down the line. Because who knows how long till a professor will be replaced along with his school Web-space.
I'm not giving Wikipedia a 100% approval, but I do think its a reliable resource to inform your reader while keeping their attention. The only real problematic 'Con' I can think of is that the little sites are missing out on the SEO of having outsider links. It can be like shopping at Walmart, when your local grocery shop could use your support more.
On a future note, when Google creates a virtual library of all the books in the world, this could be a moot point. Certainly students won't have any excuses for not linking to the real sources.
One drawback with relying on Wikipedia is that an encyclopedia -- any encyclopedia -- presents a synthesis of opinions on a subject, and Wikipedia's editorial policies (no original research; present a neutral point of view) tend to present issues in a cut-and-dried format. This is fine for getting a current overview, but not for debating individual details. Yes, those links to Wikipedia will probably work years from now, but the article will have changed.
So if you want to use your blog to make a public statement responding to a specific author's opinion, it's better to use Wikipedia as a way to find those opinions, and then cite them directly. A really useful blog entry will have links that include some range of context, history, examples, alternative/opposing views, and quibbling over complex details that only make sense to experts. There's certainly room for Wikipedia in that mix.