Thanks for explaining how an encyclopedia works, I guess.
Of course an encyclopedia is going to cite mostly secondary sources, especially when covering a matter that cannot be proven based on a single account or piece of evidence. That’s not some kind of gotcha.
Personally I trust Wikipedia enough to assume they’ll cite mostly reliable secondary sources that are based on a significant amount of credible witness accounts and evidence (aka primary sources). Of course a bit of healthy skepticism is a good thing, so if you’d like to take a closer look at Wikipedia’s sources and what their claims are based on, more power to you!
I’m curious, how many of the 403 sources cited by Wikipedia did you look at before deciding none of them are based on credible primary sources?
Thanks for explaining how an encyclopedia works, I guess.
Of course an encyclopedia is going to cite mostly secondary sources, especially when covering a matter that cannot be proven based on a single account or piece of evidence. That’s not some kind of gotcha.
Personally I trust Wikipedia enough to assume they’ll cite mostly reliable secondary sources that are based on a significant amount of credible witness accounts and evidence (aka primary sources). Of course a bit of healthy skepticism is a good thing, so if you’d like to take a closer look at Wikipedia’s sources and what their claims are based on, more power to you!
I’m curious, how many of the 403 sources cited by Wikipedia did you look at before deciding none of them are based on credible primary sources?
That’s the neat part. They don’t! Why bother checking things when you can dismiss reality!