The part I linked to had a nice summation in answer to the question the OP asked and cited its sources. I don’t know what your beef is. People (even scientists!) do cite secondary sources instead of doing original research. What am I going to do, hastily assemble a clinical trial dividing my cats into control groups and experimental groups?
This! I heartily endorse this idea!
Whoops, that is actually from Mystery Science Theater 3000 Hercules Against The Moon Men

This! I heartily endorse this idea!
Project is underway. Well, damn, the fat one just went clear.

The part I linked to had a nice summation in answer to the question the OP asked and cited its sources. I don’t know what your beef is. People (even scientists!) do cite secondary sources instead of doing original research. What am I going to do, hastily assemble a clinical trial dividing my cats into control groups and experimental groups?
Loosen up your bun there, Felix. I was merely bemused at the ironicality of it all:
“It ain’t science! Look, Wikipedia says so!”
mmm

Are you are referring to the very well debunked idea that wikipedia is not accurate? Numerous studies have been done to show it is as accurate or more accurate than any other source out there. You could Google those studies very easily, unless of course you are worried that Google isn’t accurate.
Cite? (other than Wikipedia :))
mmm
Well, as a computer programmer, I’ll say that Hubbard’s diagrams of human brain functioning are strikingly similar to the architecture of an electronic computer. It’s interesting to see the human brain modeled like this. No, I don’t follow that path, but it’s interesting.
(Sorry, don’t have a cite. It’s been a while since I picked up Dianetics. I know I have a copy somewhere.)

Cite? (other than Wikipedia :))
mmm
By the way, classic message board meme - you make a wild assertion with no links then demand I produce links to refute you.

Numerous studies have been done to show it is as accurate or more accurate than any other source out there.

From your link:
They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.
“The (Nature) article is saying that Wikipedia has a third more errors” than Britannica, said Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopedia Britannica.
Care to try again?
mmm
ETA: We have really hijacked the OP, which was not my intention. My assertion has not changed: Wikipedia is not an authoritative reference. To be honest, though, I’m really not that passionate about the topic to continue. So, agree to disagree, and all that.

Loosen up your bun there, Felix. I was merely bemused at the ironicality of it all:
“It ain’t science! Look, Wikipedia says so!”
mmm
The irony ain’t there, Scout. Someone asked a question and I linked to the answer. That’s all. It wasn’t “real science,” and it wasn’t an argument. It was a resource they might found useful. It cites other resources. That’s how people answer questions sometimes. With answers.
But I’ll take your bemusement on your word.

We have really hijacked the OP, which was not my intention. My assertion has not changed: Wikipedia is not an authoritative reference. To be honest, though, I’m really not that passionate about the topic to continue. So, agree to disagree, and all that.
The Wikipedia article I linked to cited its sources, ones which I knew to be accurate because I’ve researched the topic myself. Sorry for not digging up the original articles and scanning them, but there’s copyrights to consider and it seemed like a pain in the ass.
Meh. I’ve always considered Scientology to be a kind of joke, I don’t hate it, I just find it amusing…

Yes, Dianetics preceded Scientology by a couple of years, and was posited as a metaphysical work, whatever that means. Of course it had no supporters in the scientific community, so Hubbard decided to dub it a religion.
And this he did, if memory serves, just a few years after badmouthing religion as a scam perpetrated upon the gullible.
mmm