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.

  • 📛Maven
    link
    fedilink
    English
    301 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
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

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

      • @nyar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        191 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 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
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

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

          • 📛Maven
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 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?