you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

If you use Wikipedia for basic facts, it's fine. If you want controversial details, you have to search for that separately. Even on a good day, controversy is debatable, and a crowd sourced repository like Wikipedia will never land squarely in the middle of any debate. Anyone who expects more from it is naive anyway.

[–]sawboss 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Try using Wikipedia to get "basic facts" on nutrition. I dare you.

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe they're not so basic.

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's like cheap Snopes only it sucks more.