I understand that there are a few related questions on meta. I understand that we no longer close as "general reference".
What I don't understand is, to what degree do we consider Memory Alpha a reliable source? As far as I can tell, it's just a wiki and anyone could put anything there. And yet we have numerous answers the cite 'Memory Alpha says' or 'there's no reference on Memory alpha' or quote Memory Alpha etc.
How much should we accept Memory Alpha as 'evidence'?
For instance, see this question that I asked:
Read @N_Soong's answer first and then @Richard's. (In case @N_Soong reads this: it wasn't your fault, it was Memory Alpha's!)
In my own answers, I use Memory Alpha mainly as "further reading" on episodes that I refer to. If I write something like
Geordi found a strange shadow in a holo-recording in "Identity Crisis",
then I will usually put in a link to the episode:
Geordi found a strange shadow in a holo-recording in "Identity Crisis",
as a benefit to the reader, since the plot summaries are very complete at Memory Alpha.
However, I try to avoid using Memory Alpha for primary research. On several occasions in non-episode articles, I have found quizzical statements with no primary reference. At times when the only available information on a topic is an unsupported claim from Memory Alpha, I will include the claim in my answer, but with a proviso that it is unauthenticated and may be purely speculative in nature, despite being presented by Memory Alpha as fact.
In general, I find that Memory Alpha makes for good reading and browsing but not necessarily for good research.
Theoretically, Memory Alpha is a Wikia, meaning anyone can write anything random there. Therefore, mere wording from MA should not be used as canon source, especially specific nuances of wording (Wikia writers on SFF topics tend to have a strong tendency to take a short phrase/fact from canon, and spin a whole wider non-supported narrative around that fact).
As such, MA should really be used only as a secondary source - meaning,
Ideally, use it to find and cite primary sources
If you use it as a source without primary cite, explicitly note that in your answer.
Practically, Memory Alpha, in my less-than-expert experience, seems to be far less inaccurate than other Wikias I'm familiar with (Wookiepedia/HP Wikia) overall, and seems to have a decent editorial/moderation policy. So while I wouldn't trust MA info that isn't sourced explicitly nearly as much as I'd trust canon primary source, I would also trust it more than random unsourced fact on other Wikias.
From my experience currently the mods of memory alpha are not letting bad info up on the wiki. Most of the info on Memory alpha also contains references to specific episodes, and interviews, so the vast majority of it is verifiable. Unless we start to see conflicting, or wrong info on the site i believe its a great tool to answer questions.
As with all things found online a reasonable sense of caution should be used, attempt to double check, follow references, research your answers well, but generally its a safe place for good quality material.
