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@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 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@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 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?