This is essentially a follow-up on the questions about whether we are an expert site or not, such as Are we aiming to be an expert site? and Is expert level the same as difficult?. I see some answers that essentially point at a Wikipedia page. There are of course also comments that do the same. The eagerness to share findings is of course commendable and I would not like to put down the efforts as such. The problem is that Wikipedia is basically the first that comes up in a search on the keywords for any specific question so it would almost be a given that anyone posting a question would (or at least should) at least have checked this source for some information. Clearly we want more in-depth answers than what is commonly given on Wikipedia on most Earth Science topics. In addition, link only answers are not acceptable so linking to Wikipedia may be ok as long as there is a reasonable spelled out answer.
So, since the purpose here is to provide good quality answers to good questions, we need to convey that largely link-based answers without a good quality summary in text as an answer is not what we aim for here. Hence, how do we handle such Wikipedia-answers? I am not thinking in terms of downvoting or close-votes but in terms of reaching out to the persons asking. As an example, at TeX.sx a page of "standard" comments have been established to meet and greet new users and provide feedback on low quality Q-A.