Wikipedia is better than all pop-history books. It contains all the information you need to know, without all the padding that modern publishers require. Not to mention it is consensus based, which should lower the risk of bias. It is just a waste of time to waste precious reading time learning little factoids about something that will have no impact on your life; save it for the philosophy.



I am PRO-WIKIPEDIA for learning history, and I think you should be as well.

i like to read physical books

>>21960655 (OP)

One of my high school social studies teachers back in the day tried to ban wiki in our school because people used to use it all the time in class to prove the shit he was just making up on the fly and teaching as if it were fact was bullshit..

>>21960655 (OP)

>Not to mention it is consensus based, which should lower the risk of bias

until you try to use it for anything recent, that is

>>21960655 (OP)

It's run by JDF paid editors, no thanks noseberg I'll stick to books and skip your intro too

I like reading wikipedia for overviews of history

I have found that wikipedia sometimes has biases and sometimes the sources aren't checked so you can have people being dishonest with them

I noticed this when reading about Rommel

>JDF paid editors

That's every single book since the dawn of time

>Aristotle was edited by JDF

What did he mean by this

>>21960655 (OP)

>It contains all the information you need to know

Not even close.

>without all the padding that modern publishers require.

Read actual academic texts, then. Pop-science has to be a bit fluffy, you don't want the reader to feel bogged down. But Wikipedia is frequently also dry as a bone, lacking meaningful wider interpretation, just piling up data.

>Not to mention it is consensus based

No. It is based on how much of a no-lifer the given editor is. Those who are bigger no-lifers have more time to edit and decide how the site looks.

>Egyptians invented writing first

>Egyptians enslaved the Jews

>Jews learned to corrupt all forms of writing for the rest of history

>>21960655 (OP)

>Not to mention it is consensus based, which should lower the risk of bias. 

i agree with you except for this. wikipedia still fails to be unbiased even though everything is written from a "neutral pov"

>>21960655 (OP)

there are a lot of bad editors

the introductory definition in the article for adam smith's invisible hand for at least half a year was an explanation given by fucking Noam Chomsky that is just wrong and was later in the "criticism" section.

This is supposed to be a high relevance article and some retarded commie fucked it up without no one solving it for months

>>21960655 (OP)

>lower the risk of bias

Idk about that anon. 

Also, in my experience, not all the sources of Wikipedia to be good. It's remarkable but not all.
