61–70 of 279 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia is actually the secondary source when someone reads a page on it, and it requires primary sources (like factbooks) to cite to exist.
The problem is who checks the sources. Of the what billions of sources, how many have actually been verified?
is is the Gulf of America or not?
Feels very short sighted, the Factbook is a great example of low cost soft power.
Are we remembering the same Factbook? It had summary statistics for every country and some brief blurbs about their history, climate, economy, etc. Strictly speaking yeah it generated some legitimacy to publish a resource like this and I find it hard to believe the CIA can't scrape a few quarters together to keep it running, but most of it's value is sentimental.
Unfortunate. So many essays that I wrote in school cited The World Facebook as a source. I'm worried that the death of these easily accessible sources will push more and more pupils into relying on Wikipedia or even worse: AI. Being critical of what you see online and finding facts yourself is crucial to digital literacy.
A source of propaganda? There's nothing the CIA does without political motivation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you think the information on Wikipedia comes from? Not that Wikipedia strongly relies on The World Factbook, but it can't exist without other secondary sources like these.
Most countries have some kind of statistics department that publishes that kind of data in great detail. The issues start when you try to compare data, because different sources will use different methodologies
Unfortunate. So many essays that I wrote in school cited The World Facebook as a source. I'm worried that the death of these easily accessible sources will push more and more pupils into relying on Wikipedia or even worse: AI. Being critical of what you see online and finding facts yourself is crucial to digital literacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is who checks the sources. Of the what billions of sources, how many have actually been verified?
Also, when there are conflicts, who decides what the ‘facts’ are, eh? is is the Gulf of America or not?
The Factbook dates from a time when this was the most convenient source of updated concise summaries of all countries. It didn’t necessarily go into great detail except for countries important to the US national interest. This has been eclipsed by Wikipedia, the information there is far more comprehensive and govt officials will go there to make updates and corrections.
Can we please, please not outsource everything to Wikipedia? Many of the editors there are hardly impartial
Feels very short sighted, the Factbook is a great example of low cost soft power.
"President Trump has managed in just one year to destroy the American order that was and has weakened America's ability to protect its interests in the world that will be. Americans thought defending the liberal world order was too expensive. Wait until they start paying for what comes next,"
https://www.npr.org/2026/02/04/nx-s1-5699388/is-the-u-s-head...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, when there are conflicts, who decides what the ‘facts’ are, eh? is is the Gulf of America or not?
Nobody, you just mention the different points of view that are in the sources.
Everyone has to end up filtering at some point or it’s all just noise.
Unfortunate. So many essays that I wrote in school cited The World Facebook as a source. I'm worried that the death of these easily accessible sources will push more and more pupils into relying on Wikipedia or even worse: AI. Being critical of what you see online and finding facts yourself is crucial to digital literacy.