Suggesting that wikipedia is a "bad resource" because it has a left bias is an ad hominem which misses what an investigation is. An investigation into the veracity of a thing doesn't care about the source of statements of facts, nor the biases of that source, it cares about the arguments. It cares about citations which lead to further digging to find original sources and/or corroborating evidence.

Wikipedia is a great resource for investigation because it is well sourced. Assuming that other sources are "more truthful" because they confirm your own biases is the opposite of investigating the truth of a thing. All that is, is seeking out justification for your beliefs. The Truth is whatever it is. If you only go around looking for "right-leaning" sources you don't care about the truth, you only care about remaining within your echo chamber.

The Left and the Right are both controlled opposition. The Truth is whatever it is. Look at the arguments. Investigate for yourself. Look at the biases, whichever direction they lean and appreciate what is statement of fact, and what is biased opinion. While it is important to distinguish those things during reading, those two things are not mutually exclusive. Statements of fact can be stated in a biased way either through rhetoric or by leaving out important context. Both of those are very common and lead the reader to believe the author rather than appreciate the nuggets of fact contained within the rhetoric. This happens on all sides of the political spectrum and is fundamental to what rhetoric is; attempting to change the readers beliefs to align with some agenda.

There is so much to be said on this, but in short, suggesting that we should not use wikipedia for investigation is ludicrous. It is incredibly well sourced and is an excellent resource; far better than 99% of the resources other people use. What you should not do is trust wikipedia (or any of the sources referenced within it). But of course, you shouldn't trust anything or anyone. Trust is the opposite of critical thinking and can only hamper any honest investigation into the truth of a thing.

Suggesting that wikipedia is a "bad resource" because it has a left bias is an ad hominem which misses what an investigation is. An investigation into the veracity of a thing doesn't care about the source of statements of facts, nor the biases of that source, it cares about the arguments. It cares about citations which lead to further digging to find original sources and/or corroborating evidence.

Wikipedia is a great resource for investigation because it is well sourced. Assuming that other sources are "more truthful" because they confirm your own biases is the opposite of investigating the truth of a thing. All that is, is seeking out justification for your beliefs. The Truth is whatever it is. If you only go around looking for "right-leaning" sources you don't care about the truth, you only care about remaining within your echo chamber.

The Left and the Right are both controlled opposition. The Truth is whatever it is. Look at the arguments. Investigate for yourself. Look at the biases, whichever direction they lean and appreciate what is statement of fact, and what is biased opinion. While it is important to distinguish those things during reading, those two things are not mutually exclusive. Statements of fact can be stated in a biased way either through rhetoric or by leaving out important context. Both of those are very common and lead the reader to believe the author rather than appreciate the nuggets of fact contained within the rhetoric. This happens on all sides of the political spectrum and is fundamental to what rhetoric is; attempting to change the readers beliefs to align with some agenda.

There is so much to be said on this, but in short, suggesting that we should not use wikipedia for investigation is ludicrous. It is incredibly well sourced and is an excellent resource; far better than 99% of the resources other people use. What you should not do is trust wikipedia. But of course, you shouldn't trust anything or anyone. Trust is the opposite of critical thinking and can only hamper any honest investigation into the truth of a thing.

Suggesting that wikipedia is a "bad resource" because it has a left bias is an ad hominem which misses what an investigation is. An investigation into the veracity of a thing doesn't care about the source of statements of facts, nor the biases of that source, it cares about the arguments. It cares about citations which lead to further digging to find original sources and/or corroborating evidence.

Wikipedia is a great resource for investigation because it is well cited. Assuming that other sources are "more truthful" because they confirm your own biases is the opposite of investigating the truth of a thing. All that is, is seeking out justification for your beliefs. The Truth is whatever it is. If you only go around looking for "right-leaning" sources you don't care about the truth, you only care about remaining within your echo chamber.

The Left and the Right are both controlled opposition. The Truth is whatever it is. Look at the arguments. Investigate for yourself. Look at the biases, whichever direction they lean and appreciate what is statement of fact, and what is biased opinion. While it is important to distinguish those things during reading, those two things are not mutually exclusive. Statements of fact can be stated in a biased way either through rhetoric or by leaving out important context. Both of those are very common and lead the reader to believe the author rather than appreciate the nuggets of fact contained within the rhetoric. This happens on all sides of the political spectrum and is fundamental to what rhetoric is; attempting to change the readers beliefs to align with some agenda.

There is so much to be said on this, but in short, suggesting that we should not use wikipedia for investigation is ludicrous. It is incredibly well sourced and is an excellent resource; far better than 99% of the resources other people use. What you should not do is trust wikipedia. But of course, you shouldn't trust anything or anyone. Trust is the opposite of critical thinking and can only hamper any honest investigation into the truth of a thing.

Suggesting that wikipedia is a "bad resource" because it has a left bias is an ad hominem which misses what an investigation is. An investigation into the veracity of a thing doesn't care about the source of statements of facts, it cares about the arguments. It cares about citations which lead to further digging to find original sources and/or corroborating evidence.

Wikipedia is a great resource for investigation because it is well cited. Assuming that other sources are "more truthful" because they confirm your own biases is the opposite of investigating the truth of a thing. All that is, is seeking out justification for your beliefs. The Truth is whatever it is. If you only go around looking for "right-leaning" sources you don't care about the truth, you only care about remaining within your echo chamber.

The Left and the Right are both controlled opposition. The Truth is whatever it is. Look at the arguments. Investigate for yourself. Look at the biases, whichever direction they lean and appreciate what is statement of fact, and what is biased opinion. While it is important to distinguish those things during reading, those two things are not mutually exclusive. Statements of fact can be stated in a biased way either through rhetoric or by leaving out important context. Both of those are very common and lead the reader to believe the author rather than appreciate the nuggets of fact contained within the rhetoric. This happens on all sides of the political spectrum and is fundamental to what rhetoric is; attempting to change the readers beliefs to align with some agenda.

There is so much to be said on this, but in short, suggesting that we should not use wikipedia for investigation is ludicrous. It is incredibly well sourced and is an excellent resource; far better than 99% of the resources other people use. What you should not do is trust wikipedia. But of course, you shouldn't trust anything or anyone. Trust is the opposite of critical thinking and can only hamper any honest investigation into the truth of a thing.