Today they might have better trust for Wikipedia-- and I know I use it as a source of truth for a lot of things-- but back in my day teachers were of the opinion that it couldn't be trusted. This was for like middle and high school, not college or university, so we would cite encyclopedias and that sort of thing, since we weren't reading cutting edge papers back then (maybe today kids read them, who knows).
Edit: Also, I think the GP comment was proven correct by all of the replies claiming that Wikipedia was never controversial because it was very clear to everyone my age when Wikipedia was created/founded that teachers didn't trust the internet nor Wikipedia at the time.
All of that said, I trust Wikipedia more than I trust any LLMs but don't rely on either as a final source for understanding complex topics.
When Wikipedia was founded, it was much easier to change articles without notice. There may not have been 1000s of experts at the time, like there are today. There's also other things that Wikipedia does to ensure articles are accurate today that they may not have done or been able to do decades ago.
I am not making a judgment of Wikipedia, I use it quite a bit, I am just stating that it wasn't trusted when it first came out specifically because it could be changed by anyone. No one understood it then, but today I think people understand that it's probably as trustworthy or moreso than a traditional encyclopedia is/was.
Personally, my opinion of human nature falls somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.
I think when humans are given the choice to cooperate or fight, most choose to order a pizza.
A content creator I used to follow was fond of saying "Chill out, America isn't headed towards another civil war. We're way too fat and lazy for that."
Isn't that exactly what happens on any controversial Wikipedia page?
An encyclopedia does not cite its sources, and does not claim to be a primary source, its potentialymistakes cannot be checked.
(Wikipedia has the additional problem that, by default, the version cited is the ever-changing "latest" version, not a fixed and identified version.)
I do understand the "latest version" argument, and it is a weakness, but it's also a double edged sword - it means Wikipedia can also be more up-to-date than (almost) any other source for the information. Thats why I say there's "nothing specifically wrong about Wikipedia either" it can be held in similar regard to other tertiary sources and encyclopaedias - with all the problems that come with those.
Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, compilations of information generated by others. They are neither sources of first hand information (primary sources) nor original analysis (secondary sources). You can't cite encyclopedias because there's nothing to cite. The encyclopedia was not the first place the claim was made, even if it was the first place you happened to read it. You don't attribute a Wayne Gretsky quote to Michael Scott no matter how clearly he told you Wayne Gretsky said it.
Likewise, primary sources for some claims may be tertiary sources for others. If you read the memoirs of a soldier in WW1 who is comparing his exploits to those of a roman general from antiquity, he is a primary source for the WW1 history and a tertiary source for the roman history.
Survey articles and textbooks are generally tertiary. They may include analysis which is secondary and citable, but even then only the parts which are original are citable.
As a more general rule, you can't cite a piece of information from a work which is itself citing that piece of information (or ought to be).
Only citing means copying the URL directly. If you use Wikipedia's "Cite this page" or an external reference management tool (e.g. Zotero), the current page ID will be appended to the URL.
Either way, you are correct, we weren't allowed to cite any encyclopedia, but they were meant to be jumping off points for papers. After Wikipedia launched when I was in 9th grade, we weren't allowed to even look at it (blocked from school computers).
I definitely used it though.
Same thing happened with ChatGPT - teachers hate competition
Of course that's demonstrative of the genesis fallacy. Anyone can write or publish a book, too. So it always comes down to "how can you trust information?" That's where individual responsibility to think critically comes in. There's not really anything you can do about the fact that a lot of people will choose to not think.
1) encyclopedias are a tertiary source. They cite information collected by others. (Primary source: the actual account/document etc, Secondary source: books or articles about the subject, Tertiary source: Summaries of secondary sources.)
2) The purpose of writing a research paper was.. doing research and looking up an entry in an encylopedia is a very superficial form of research.
Also the overall quality of Wikipedia articles has improved over the years. I remember when it was much more like HHG with random goofy stuff in articles, poor citations, etc. Comparing it to, for instance, Encarta was often fun.
This comes from decades of teachers misremembering what the rule was, and eventually it morphed into the Wikipedia specific form we see today - the actual rule is that you cannot cite an encyclopaedia in an academic paper. full stop.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and therefore should not be cited.
Wikipedia is the only encyclopaedia most people have used in the last 20 years, therefore Wikipedia = encyclopaedia in most people's minds.
There's nothing wrong with using an encyclopaedia for learning or introducing yourself to a topic (in fact this is what teachers told students to do). And there's nothing specifically wrong about Wikipedia either.