YSK: When you want to learn the facts on a controversial topic, check Wikipedia

fbmac@lemmy.fbmac.net to You Should Know@lemmy.world – 43 points –

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.

38

You are viewing a single comment

No, I didn't anticipate significant backslash. The criticism of Wikipedia is valid, but I'm comparing it to the raw stream of BS I get on social media, not to an idealistic vision of what wikipedia should be

Oh that. Yes in comparison to that even controversial Wikipedia entries are saint like.

Okay, but like, places like AP and Reuters are right there and free. If someone's thirsty, you shouldn't point them at a dirty puddle because it's better than sewage, you should turn the faucet on.

"Raw" news sources don't aggregate though.

Aggregating a biased list of sources is worse than not aggregating at all. I would rather someone not know a story at all than they know one side of it as "the truth"