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.
HKayn@dormi.zone 8 months 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 8 months 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 8 months 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.
darcy@discuss.tchncs.de 8 months ago
But the fact that a lot of editors fight about such issues means that it ends up being somewhat neutral, no?
HKayn@dormi.zone 8 months ago
Depends on who’s currently winning the fight.
cwagner@lemmy.cwagner.me 8 months ago
JPJones@lemmy.one 8 months ago
*citation needed