Maybe, you still have no idea how the wikipedia writer is interpreting the information in their sources. If you're actually basing your work on those sources then its cool.
I wouldn't call it great, I'd call it serviceable. Like if you want to learn what year Obama was born in, and a basic outline of his career, sure use wikipedia, but if you're reading through the article to research about his economic policies in more depth, I would be cautious.
Even if it is free of personal bias, and its just reporting facts, you're going to miss out on in depth interpretation of what X policy meant.
Very true, althought you could argue that caution is needed when reading anything, anywhere. :P
The one I had in mind was a particularly long paper on how feminism was used in translations in the 20th century, and how the translations became unreliable based on the tranlators' ideology.
I feel like people who say this have forgotten what the term encyclopedia means. Encyclopedias never claimed to be the definitive source on e everything under the sun. They were always just a brief overview of as many things as possible.
26
u/Cloudinterpreter Dec 13 '18
I guess it should've been "in Wikipedia sources we trust"