4 ms·

Some people just demand that Wikipedia be a universal factual info database, missing nothing. It'd be nice, though.

• ghaff 3y ago
  There really isn't such a thing though for many topics as a universal factual info database. For many, e.g. historical, topics different books have different areas of focus and interpret events differently. Encyclopedias do to a certain degree (and historical "truth" may shift over time) but, in general, they're not the place to hash out the "right" interpretation of events.
  • LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
    > historical, topics different books have different areas of focus and interpret events differently In those areas the fact isn't the base fact, but claims of fact. We don't know who explored which bit of the great pyramid in which order, and may never, but we know of many specific claims. The fact check wouldn't be "The great pyramid X" but "Herodotus said X about the great pyramid". > in general, they're not the place to hash out the "right" interpretation of events. Once you scope the problem correctly it's not a problem. The point isn't to solve historical riddles, it's to document what evidence we have. Sometimes that evidence is broadly accepted measurements (land area of Australia) and other times it's not.