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.

  • redballooon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    I cannot get rid of the feeling that you post this primarily to expose users to the backlash your post will inarguably get.

    • fbmac@lemmy.fbmac.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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

      • redballooon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

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

      • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

          • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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”