> But what alternative to Wikipedia do you propose? What I do personally for subject that feel a bit controversial is: 1) read the Wiki article 2) read the Tal

> But what alternative to Wikipedia do you propose? What I do personally for subject that feel a bit controversial is: 1) read the Wiki article 2) read the Talk page 3) look for edits that were made earlier (special before the 2016 USA election) 4) look for primary sources when feasible. As another commenter mentioned here - editing articles in Wikipedia is a waste of time now, because there are interest groups that control a lot of "touchy" subjects. As an example (and I am adding it because I know the subject matter, having read 5 books by the author) compare the leading abstract of "Julius Evola" before 2016, and after: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&oldid=673273242 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&oldi... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola What changed? Evola was one of the authors that Steve Bannon mentioned in one of his interviews. So editors tried to turn Evola into a misogynist + racist + fascist, just to smear the Bannon guy.