When teachers and professors say that Wikipedia isn't a source, it's because of the weakness of a public encyclopedia means makingeveryone dependent on good will. That's why sources are so important; they allow you and anyone interested to look into it and verify for yourself if what it says is correct, serving as a starting point to read more about a particular subject.
An example to illustrate:
Unfortunately, while the general "Somalia" and "Mogadishu" pages are acceptable, the specific sections on sultanates and antiquity have weak sources. I've encountered numerous instances where strong statements are made, but upon checking the sources, they either lead to dead links, weak non-academic sources, or the sources contradict the stated information entirely.
In short, there's a significant shortage of primary sources and an overwhelming abundance of "not good" to "not cited" sources.
I just wanted to mention this and see if others have noticed it too. Personally, if I had more time, I would download every historical source, organize them by time, date, and area, and reconstruct a canon of Somali history.
An example to illustrate:
Unfortunately, while the general "Somalia" and "Mogadishu" pages are acceptable, the specific sections on sultanates and antiquity have weak sources. I've encountered numerous instances where strong statements are made, but upon checking the sources, they either lead to dead links, weak non-academic sources, or the sources contradict the stated information entirely.
In short, there's a significant shortage of primary sources and an overwhelming abundance of "not good" to "not cited" sources.
I just wanted to mention this and see if others have noticed it too. Personally, if I had more time, I would download every historical source, organize them by time, date, and area, and reconstruct a canon of Somali history.
