> For people unfamiliar with a subject (students) I think Wikipedia pages are misleading, poorly organized, and sometimes wrong. This is true even if you're re

> For people unfamiliar with a subject (students) I think Wikipedia pages are misleading, poorly organized, and sometimes wrong. This is true even if you're reading works from experts in a field. For instance, Robert Hoyland, Fred Donner, and Patricia Crone (until her death a few years ago) are some of the leading academics in the studies of early historical Islam. However, Donner's review of Hoyland's textbook thought it was misleading[1], Crone's review of Donner's textbook considered it misleading, and Crone's Hagarism is generally not accepted by any current scholar as far as I can tell. That is to say, one needs to be skeptical no matter the source, as well as humble enough to realize that know more than others doesn't necessarily make your understanding more correct. It's also useful to try to understand the disagreements in the field and how they've developed. [1] http://www.middleeastmedievalists.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/UW-23-Donner.pdf http://www.middleeastmedievalists.com/wp-content/uploads/201... [2] https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/among-the-believers https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articl...