I don't think you are contradicting the parent. It's useful to acknowledge the slipperiness in some form.
With encyclopedic content, the consensus 'fact' is useful, plus the level and strength of general agreement over time is useful, plus the alternative 'facts' are useful.
Wikipedia is too much a collection of the most obstinate authors' latest opinions. It's saving grace is the 'History' tab, which adds a lot of value, at least for me.
With encyclopedic content, the consensus 'fact' is useful, plus the level and strength of general agreement over time is useful, plus the alternative 'facts' are useful.
Wikipedia is too much a collection of the most obstinate authors' latest opinions. It's saving grace is the 'History' tab, which adds a lot of value, at least for me.