3 ms·
I think what's great about it is that while it is high level, the embedded hyperlinks take you to the full historical account via the relevant wikipedia entries
by somethoughts 5y ago
I think what's great about it is that while it is high level, the embedded hyperlinks take you to the full historical account via the relevant wikipedia entries which go way in depth.
I think the problem with 24 hour news cycle is that the soundbite interviews with experts often give me a superficial, one sided view into what is usually a multi-sided, complex problem/conflict (if it were so simple then it would have been solved already). Usually the pundit/news source has a strong opinion about the topic and is easily able to steer my opinion through their interpretation and through the inclusion/omission of certain facts.
With this page I can't delude myself that I'll know anything beyond the superficial unless I'm willing to invest in a couple of hours digging through the wikipedia entries.
- ailef 5y agoI agree with your approach but I think that, unfortunately, Wikipedia is extremely unreliable when it comes to political content (or anything that can be politicized). I mostly use it as a starting point to collect references, but even those will be biased as only the sources that comply with WP definition of reliable will be included. I suggest always looking at the talk page in controversial topics if you want to look at the other side of the argument.