> historical, topics different books have different areas of focus and interpret events differently
In those areas the fact isn't the base fact, but claims of fact. We don't know who explored which bit of the great pyramid in which order, and may never, but we know of many specific claims.
The fact check wouldn't be "The great pyramid X" but "Herodotus said X about the great pyramid".
> in general, they're not the place to hash out the "right" interpretation of events.
Once you scope the problem correctly it's not a problem. The point isn't to solve historical riddles, it's to document what evidence we have.
Sometimes that evidence is broadly accepted measurements (land area of Australia) and other times it's not.
In those areas the fact isn't the base fact, but claims of fact. We don't know who explored which bit of the great pyramid in which order, and may never, but we know of many specific claims.
The fact check wouldn't be "The great pyramid X" but "Herodotus said X about the great pyramid".
> in general, they're not the place to hash out the "right" interpretation of events.
Once you scope the problem correctly it's not a problem. The point isn't to solve historical riddles, it's to document what evidence we have.
Sometimes that evidence is broadly accepted measurements (land area of Australia) and other times it's not.