Is Stack Overflow trustworthy as a bibliography source in the scientific world of values?
What is meta?
- Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
- The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
- Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates
closed as not constructive by Bart, Toon Krijthe, kiamlaluno, jonsca, Servy Oct 29 '12 at 15:26
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
I guess, you can trust the tag wiki pages that are created by the users, as they are populated and maintained with information form reliable sources, official pages to a item/tag and links to the official documentation.
Also, they have undergone modifications for a reasonable amount of time and have reached to the content that is available now. Atleast this is true for the legacy tags like java, mysql, php, or any other high profile programming tag.
Hope this helps in your understanding.
No. Much like Wikipedia, StackOverflow "articles" (i.e. questions and answers) can be edited by anyone, without academic degree or any sort of certificate.
Hence, it should not be relied upon as a trustworthy citable bibliography source for academic work.
Also, I can hardly (aside from a very few, very special exceptions) call anything on Stack Overflow "academic level". Stack Overflow generally deals with practical, technical solutions, for specific problems. It's rare to see a very large, general, well explained and exampled answer, with very high level information and thoroughness. That's usually an ideal dream.