Is Wikipedia a reliable source to learn about history?
Is Wikipedia a reliable source to learn about history?
Grayson Parker
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
britannica.com
twitter.com
Lincoln Scott
yes
Jackson James
Yes[4][5]
Ryan Cook
It's a decent place to start, but once you find things that interest you then you should go to a library and start reading books on it.
Lucas Gomez
might as well most sources even though credible will probably be attacked anyway due to "muh bias" and "muh elitism"
Jordan Cooper
wonder why Veeky Forums doesn't make it's own site on the summery of history of this or that country?
Jackson Bell
We should do this.
Justin Campbell
the people who make edits to the articles on wikipedia that don't get deleted in five minutes probably know more about history than the average Veeky Forums-fag
John Gomez
no, read the Talk section on any controversial historical page and see the dumbasses that edit stuff. I once found a literal wewuzzer with an ankh profile picture and everything who did nothing but edit pages concerning black history.
Ryder Davis
On a superficial level, yes. After a while it becomes easy to just take parts of an article and disregard the "and then there was a battle and it was awesome"-tier shit that some people add to the pages.
Zachary Morales
Because it would be like 1d4chan but not funny.
Owen Harris
That's just the countryball wiki
Connor Ramirez
I don't know, I like the transparency seeing editing histories, and there are always [Citation needed] everywhere in those types of articles.
Joshua Garcia
It's a good starting off point.
Gabriel Cox
en.wikipedia.org
judge for yourself
Andrew Myers
if you are american yes
Cameron Hall
Go on wikipedia, read a bit on subject, find books about it.
Wikipedia is like that one time your dad let you drive his car in a parking lot on a sunday afteroon, it won't teach you how to drive but it's still something
Ethan King
It can give you the basic facts, but history tends to have a lot of different perspectives on a single issue, and then you start verging into historiography.
Samuel Johnson
depends on the article writers it attracts, with the more obscure facts and niche areas it can give you a quick rundown, with pophis it will be full of memes, if you go into the edit section you will find some meme being changing only for it to be changed back a second later by a neurotic nerd with an obsession with it who whines and bitches to the mods to get the article locked and anyone who disagrees banned
Chase King
>wonder why Veeky Forums doesn't make it's own site on the summery of history of this or that country?
Because bibliographies exist
Nolan Richardson
Somehow I feel I'd be a tad more autistic just by reading about that shit. That was the most pathetic shitstorm in internet history.
Isaac Diaz
Oliver Phillips
I concur
Hunter Collins
It's pretty basic but decent, yes. Obviously you should go and read some books if you want to properly know about a subject.
It would be shit, the average Veeky Forums poster knows virtually nothing while thinking they know far more than they actually do.
Oliver Fisher
It would be horrible, uninformed, ideologically-driven opining mixed with pointless memes and cringe-inducing attempts at humour.
Jaxon Hall
>Because bibliographies exist
By your logic, why are you here then? After all, as you say, bibliographies exist.