Dear Andrew, This is too sharp a rule for me. I have no objection to reference books as sources. One can often find useful bits of information, definitions, pointers, and references that add dimension to articles and papers. This is especially true of specialized reference works. For example, in working through issues in philosophy of design where I try to develop a sense of meaning and consensus on terminology and issues, I often use Mautner's Dictionary of Philosophy, and occasionally the superb philosophy articles from the now on-line edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia from the early 1900s. Reference books serve a valuable role in scholarship and even in original research. Simply repeating the text in a reference book is not research. Using information judiciously to advance an argument is part of research, and reliable reference sources are one place to look. This is precisely why reference books should be reliable. Yours, Ken -- Andrew Lih wrote: Wikipedia should be treated no differently than any encyclopedia in this respect - you can't use it as a source. That's been true for me ever since junior high school. As someone who has been involved with the project for many years, I still tell my students - don't cite it as a source, or you'll be marked down. -- -- Ken Friedman Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language Norwegian School of Management Design Research Center Denmark's Design School email: ken.friedman@bi.no