If it's by an accredited scholar and/or published by a peer-reviewed academic press, that's the safest bet.https://twitter.com/Chuck_Morgan3/status/1116691894271193088 …
Show this thread
-
Historians use multitudes of sources to build up complicated interpretations. Sometimes primary sources are more credible. Sometimes they aren't. Depends on the source and the context. There are plenty of self-serving first-hand accounts that are not credible, as you'd expect.
To put it another way: you shouldn't assume doing history is any easier than doing, say, chemistry or engineering. They both are forms of expertise. If you try to wander into expert domains with just some stuff you looked up on the internet, expect to be wrong.