Should I quote Wikipedia if I can't rephrase it? [duplicate]

Question

I want to write down this idea that I get from Wikipedia: both (James Watson and Francis Crick) thanked the Schroedinger's book for their inspiration.

(More specifically, that page is What Is Life?, and that idea comes from the last sentence of the second paragraph.)

This is what the wiki writes:

each respectively acknowledged the book as a source of inspiration for their initial researches.

Of course that statement has a reference back up. My problem is that I can't figure out how to write that idea down without using the exact one used by the wiki. In my opinion, that sentence is better than any sentence I can think of to rephrase it. If I just use it anyway without quoting it, I'm afraid that I will be plagiarism. If I say that it is from Wikipedia, well, you know the result. My best solution I can find is using this clause:

stated by Wikipedia, with Julian F. Derry (2004) backs up

But it is super awkward. In case I can't think of any better sentence, do you know how should I do?

Answer 1

Should I quote Wikipedia if I can't rephrase it?

Yes. If the important thing is the facts (and not the phrasing), then forget what Wikipedia said, read the source cited there, and work from that to find your own wording. But if Wikipedia has a better phrasing than anyone else has, and you want to copy that phrasing, then you need to credit it to Wikipedia. You shouldn't use this phrasing while trying to disguise the fact that it came from Wikipedia, or try to modify it just enough that nobody can be sure of its origins. You should either credit Wikipedia or rewrite it from scratch.

If the quote is genuinely great, then using it makes sense, and nobody will care that it came from Wikipedia. (It's reasonable to question Wikipedia as a source for facts, but that's not a reason to avoid crediting it for good writing.) However, I'm not convinced this quote is so obviously wonderful that quoting it would look natural. Would it be that much worse to say something like this? "Schroedinger's book was written for a popular audience, but it was nevertheless highly influential among scientists. For example, it inspired Crick to take up the problem of the physical basis of genetics." (Note that the Derry reference you mention never says it inspired Watson except via Crick. Wikipedia cites Watson's book "Avoid Boring People" for its influence on Watson, but I haven't checked what he says there. Derry cites "The Double Helix", but I haven't checked that either. In any case, you'd need to check these references, see how to incorporate Watson, and add a suitable citation.) I'm not saying this phrasing is ideal, but it could be good enough, and I bet you could come up with various alternatives, depending on exactly what you want to convey. I doubt it's crucial to your paper that this one sentence convey exactly what Wikipedia said. If it is, then quoting Wikipedia is fine, and if it's not, then the whole issue is not so important.

Answer 2

I believe you should quote the initial source, not wikipedia. Quoting an article will not change in time, while nobody guarantees that a wikipedia entry will be the same after, say, a year or two.

Now, I don't see any problem in rephrasing what the wikipedia article says in other words, thus avoiding plagiarism, while also citing the original source.

E.g. "both scientists have acknowledged that their initial researches were inspired by [book citation]."