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.

  • 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?