Why do historians hate encyclopedias?

>>924712
Because they massively oversimplify events and don't provide any knowledge that would make an individual capable of debating a topic.

do historians hate wikipedias?

>>924834
doubly so

>>924834
Historian here. Wikipedia is great.

>>924834
No, man.

>>924834
Yes and no,
It means amateurs can add whatever poorly worded history they want, so long as they have some kind of assbackwards source to cite. But it also is an incredibly easy way to get a general idea of things, so long as you take it with a grain of salt.

As far as I know though, there's no place for debate, which means what's presented can often be one sided (not always though). Leaving obvious bias, which is never a good thing.
Overall I like it though, its fun to not always rely on pulling out full books for relatively small questions.

>>924975
>It means amateurs can add whatever poorly worded history they want
Iirc single bot removes 60% of this. 99.9% of the time whenever some nobody adds soemthing it gets removed.

>>924975
and remember, bias isnt an inherently bad thing to see when reading topics, as long as people are able to understand why they are biased.

You'll see a lot of famous Muslims historians make claims about the Mongols that are obviously very very biased, but are still important pieces to understand how people felt and currently feel

But Wikipedia being read by a mouthbreathing idiot will be much different to a person reading it who knows how to read from sources properly

>>924987
Which is why I like it, there is bias sometimes and it needs to be taken with salt, but its certainly getting better.

>>924834
The wiki /tg/ has is pretty great.

>>924712
They don't.

Anyone read the wiki on El Cid? It's awful. Just go there. Now realize that antisemitism gets favorable treatment on Wikipedia, meaning the Palestinians are always in the right.

Then go to New World Encyclopedia, but only if you are not drunk.

>>924712
They can be used as an early stepping stone to your research. Same with wikipedia. That said, a research shouldn't depend on them for watcher the bulk of their argument/research is.

>>926472
>Now realize that antisemitism gets favorable treatment on Wikipedia
Calling bull