I downvoted out of principle as their only source is a procedural generator for natural language text, as opposed to peer-reviewed historiography.
Wikipedia sometimes has similar problems, but it has generally gotten pretty good over the years on many topics. I still wouldn't cite Wikipedia on something so politically charged as the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The ChatGPT conversation has zero value as a source in the abstract.
> It feels just somewhat like when I was told not to use wikipedia in my early school days.
Do you understand why you should not cite Wikipedia?
If your objective is to get only first hand accounts, sure. But like wikipedia it's good as a source to find where to look deeper. I disagree there's zero value there. I often use it to generate a few things I go look at more serious sources for. Surely that's some value when web search's well has been well (heh) poisoned by ads?
>Do you understand why you should not cite wikipedia
If you find the primary source through wikipedia, did wikipedia provide "zero value as a source"? I don't think so. Bad analogy I suppose - I meant like how wikipedia was seen as not trustworthy to use even if you just used it to find the primary sources. I guess I should've said "use as a source" wikipedia not "cite" it.
You aren't using Wikipedia as a source but as a partial and severely biased index of the reference material. You must still be very skeptical because you have no idea what led a page's editors to include or exclude a particular reference. Frankly, you'd be better off contacting the reference desk of your local library. That's what it's there for.