One of the proofreaders for Computational Intractability: A Guide to Algorithmic Lower Bounds
made the following objection, which raises some questions.
I object to telling readers to see a Wikipedia Entry. Wikipedia is marvelous, but it is unstable. I have been led astray by short-lived editorial changes made by trolls.
The proofreader is surely correct that `See Wikipedia entry X' should be minimized. And indeed, I have gone through all of the cases we had of such things and tried to minimize them. But there are times when there seems to be no way around it. Or maybe there is but I can't see it.
a) I want to refer to the set of problems that are (exists R)-complete. The ONLY list I know of is on Wikipedia here.
b) I want to discuss the complexity of the video game braid. There is a nice Wikipedia page about the game braid here. There are some sites that have videos about the game, but not reallyan explanations of it. I DID find a site that looks pretty good, here, but is that site more stable than the Wikipedia entry? There did not seem to be an official site. (I had the same issue with the 15-puzzle and some other puzzles that do not seem to have a natural official site).
c) I want to refer the reader to a list of algorithms for discrete log. Wikipedia has a great site on this here. Is there a good article that does the same? Is it behind paywalls?
I tend to thing that the Wikipedia sites above are stable and accurate. It helps that they are not on controversial topics. They should be fine. Articles that are behind paywalls are much worse. As for articles on authors websites- are they more or less stable than Wikipedia?