When there is a heated, with a lot of strong and exaggerated arguments on both sides, and I don’t know what to believe, or I’m overwhelmed with the raw information, I look at Wikipedia. Or even something that is not a current event, but the information I found on the internet doesn’t feel reliable.

I’m sure some would find flaws there, but they do a good job of keeping it neutral and sticking to verifiable facts.

  • Kayn@dormi.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    119
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, absolutely not.

    For purely scientific articles Wikipedia is great. But anything remotely controversial or even political on that site should be taken with a grain of salt.

    There’s too many editors out there who enforce their biases and wage war on such articles.

    • amio@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is why you don’t take anything at face value. Check the sources, which you should be doing on Wikipedia anyway.

      • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A wikipedia sources list is not some sort of list of all available data on a subject. It’s a list of what information was used to build the article.

        On anything remotely divisive, there will be available primary sources for multiple viewpoints, and obviously a slanted article will largely contain sources supporting its slant and leave out sources that don’t. Just checking the sources can easily result in the illusion of consensus where there is none.

        • amio@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m going out on a limb and assuming basic fact checking skills here, yes.

          • nyar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Checking facts in a list of curated facts is not fact checking.

            Most people do not actively have access to scholarly works, nor the aptitude to review it, nor the time to do so.

          • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            In this case, the primary relevant fact checking skill would be searching for sources independent of Wikipedia, in which case, why was one starting with Wikipedia in the first place?

            • amio@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because it’s a crowdsourced way of collecting and correlating those sources.

              • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Often, collecting and correlating sources that agree with one viewpoint of a complex issue, which is the whole problem we were discussing. If a wiki article is camped by an admin with a slant, as they often are, the sources do not represent some neutral middle ground or wisdom of the crowd, they represent the things that ended up in the article and nothing more. If you want to learn the facts of a controversial topic, why would you start with a potentially biased list?

    • darcy@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      But the fact that a lot of editors fight about such issues means that it ends up being somewhat neutral, no?