Thoughts on Wikipedia as a reference for history/philosophy?
Should it be avoided at all costs or is it decent enough for getting the summary of a topic?
>>679934
It's fine.
>>679934
Pretty good. Better for science, but okay for history.
Avoid it like a plague. A great majority of citations is rooted in highly obscure, meme authors who are most likely the laughing stock of the genuine academics.
>>679934
Its a good place to get some simple facts. Because it is an encyclopedia, it is not a place to read in depth analysis, even if some of the articles can be very long.
>>679934
Gives a decent summary/background on a topic the majority of the time, an if you're really lucky you might find a couple of good references to follow up with.
You'd be nuts to solely rely on it though.
>>680000
This desu.
Avoid it for anything even vaguely controversial.
>>679934
Always check the talk page.
You can tell immediately if there's any POV by the butthurt shill editwars going on.
>>680046
Like the gamergate page. Follows the sjw narrative.
Only use it for basic information, check out the sources for more in depth reading. Avoid anything controversial though. Wikipedia likes to pick a side on controversial topics and unfairly leave out the dissenting view.
>>680142
Nope.
>>680149
This. The other day I was arguing with some fuck about some Austro-Hungarian specifics and he was all like POST A LINK TO PROVE YOU'RE RIGHT and I'm like nigger, I got this from books and primary sources, there is no link.
>>679934
For philosophy use SEP. Nothing compares.
