2 ms·

That’s what the citations and references are for.

• wolverine876 5y ago
  Citations and references are better than nothing, but they are limited: * You need to spend time: First you must find the source; what is provided in Wikipedia often is a dead link, or a book, or something else inaccessible. Then you have to read it; it can take time to find the spot in the entire source that supports the statement. It might require analysis and interpretation (I've often seen claims that relied on shoddy interpretation of evidence), including of the context and the quality of the source. And finally, if the source doesn't support the claim (which I've seen many times) it takes even longer - proving a negative, that the evidence doesn't exist, requires reading the entire source with some care. * Citations and references don't tell you when important information is omitted. For example, I could write that President X promised reform, in detail, and provide citations; I could easily omit that X had promised reform every year for five years and never delivered. I could write that Adam punched Bob and cite it, and omit that Bob punched Adam first. Another way of saying it: Accuracy is defined in some domains as Correct, Complete, and Consistent. Wikipedia is often (not always) Correct in what it says, but not Complete or Consistent.