Why read history books when Wikipedia exists?

>>3161375
You start with Wikipedia for an outline. Then you grab and read a book.

wikipedia articles aren't exactly a good read

>>3161375
Wiki will only give you a basic overview. Reading an actual book is how you get deeper knowledge. Although this also makes browsing here a more frustrating experience because you see right through BS.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, there's basically no quality control beyond good faith.

This isn't so much a problem with specialist history that requires a lot of knowledge to discuss in even rudimentary detail, but articles about more well-known events and especially events that are considered important to certain groups of people are rife with revisionism and lies and general dumbshittery.

For example, look at the Wikipedia article for the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. It's borderline incomprehensible. It used to be one of their featured articles but some fringe theorist retard edited it into a complete mess where he spends more time talking about dumb revisionist theories than the agreed upon events.

A good portion of the article is dedicated to a blog post by a Korean medical student about how he believes the battle didn't happen at all. Basically Lindbeige's "Did the Battle of Zama actually happen?" video but if he'd actually argued that it didn't.

File: military orders.jpg (1MB, 2060x1571px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2060x1571px

>>3161680

>not bothering to click on sources and actually read them in articles

>>3161385
This. Wiki articles are good primers on a topic, and can get you started with good sources in the bibliography, but if you want the full story, you need to read books.

>>3161375
There is no reason, if Wikipedia does that have it, it is objectively useless information.

to answer the [citation needed] on the articles

>>3161375
>he fell for the "yes, I know anyone can edit Wikipedia, so what? It just works!" meme

>>3161979
it may be a meme
but it's also true

>>3161979
>edits wiki with unsourced content
>change gets reverted
wow everyone can edit wikipedia with anything they like

>>3161375
B8, but librarian here and encyclopedias are used to get a first glance/introduction of the topic or a definition to begin with. Then you expand with documents dedicated to the topic

it doesnt give you any perspective, just the facts

oh yeah and the facts might be wrong

>>3161375
Why hire a lawyer or read legal texts when Wikipedia exists?

>>3161375
wiki sourcing can be pretty dodgy desu, especially in the more niche and obscure topics.

wikipedia also has a real bad a habit of weighing all facts on a topic equally. IIRC for the longest time the page on lincoln had a something like a fifth or a quarter of the page dedicated to his sexuality until it was finally separated into its own thing. probably not all wrong, but definitely mostly irrelevant to learning about him.

>>3161680
>good portion of the article is dedicated to a blog post by a Korean medical student about how he believes the battle didn't happen at all
Which 'Korean medical student'?

The hasbara fuckin control that bullshit readers digest website..it's full of Jewish trickery ...lol holohoax