Sure, good research includes cross-referencing from reliable, valid sources.
"cross?reference
Function: transitive verb
1 : to supply with cross-references
2 : to research, verify, or organize by means of cross-references
cross?ref·er·ence Function: noun : a notation or direction at one place (as in a book or filing system) to pertinent information at another place" [edited]
-- Merriam Webster Online
OTOH, peculiar online dialogue, especially with those of a particular style and/or apparent level of knowlege, who periodically sink into fits of derogation on, ultimately or arguably, the "wrong" forums, may do well to consider themselves indulged to get even a Wikipedia cite, much less an unspoken plonk.
"Don"
Rarely do I cite Wikipedia
By my recollection, rarely do you cite anything (presumably because your sources or source-- your own personal knowledge-- is an authoritative one?).
Where am I getting this info?
> Direct observation of course
Of course.
and from a *new book* that will be released later this year dealing with
> the research in new literacies.
Prettly much anyone can write a book, anyone can burn a book, anyone can ignore a book, anyone can misunderstand a book, and books about what many people already know, or books about what the authors think they know, seem a dime-a-dozen.
I'm only on chapter 10 and there's 40 total.
Wow, 40 chapters. That's impressive.
I await your wise enlightenment with bated breath.