I don't agree with comments which assert that proper, well-sourced, sober information can't change minds among people seeking videos about fringe topics.

I also think that Wikipedia is a great resource for exactly this use case, especially where a small number of easily observable facts can overturn the thrust of the disinformation (think flat earth or anti-vax).

However, in some cases, it might not be as good a resource for this purpose. For example, here's the opening sentence in the article about Lee Harvey Oswald:

> Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American former Marine and Marxist who assassinated United States President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

Of course Oswald enjoyed no trial, and the evidence against him is very flimsy. I (and I think many Americans who've studied the topic) don't think there's enough evidence against him to make such a brash declaration.

So, in this case (and I suspect, some others), Wikipedia serves to add bias rather than subtract it. I think that a sober, reasonable article on Oswald will offer a more nuanced and more factually-driven article.

I think it's especially important in these politically acrimonious times to investigate the Kennedy assassination, and the obvious conclusion from the evidence is that actors within our government executed a chief executive. Let's not misdirect people of a younger generation who try to study this topic.