Is it okay to ask questions if they're based on a dubious source?

Question

In short, I played a 1994 edutainment game that makes a statement that I am completely unable to prove or even support (I can provide more details if requested). I haven't seen the game get anything outright, 100% wrong; at most, it plays around with when events happened so that they can be presented to the players more neatly, or it makes an anachronistic joke for a cheap laugh. At the same time, it's obviously not the most reliable source, so I'm wondering if it would be a waste of time if I asked anything that stemmed from this game.

Answer 1

If you're aware that the source is dubious (and you make that clear in the question) that would seem to be reasonable grounds to question the truth of the statement. I would add that you'd be expected to show some preliminary research beyond the game, i.e. you've checked Wikipedia, done a Google search and they don't yield an obvious answer.

A dubious source is really only a problem if you're relying on it to prop up an argument. So if you asked a question with a certain historical premise and the only support for that premise was a edutainment game of questionable value then you might find people downvoting or voting to close.

Answer 2

The question sounds interesting, and I would like to see it asked. However, beware that it may get voted down. If you're thick-skinned enough to live with that, ask it. Sometimes even bad questions generate good answers.

One caveat: we get a lot of people here asking questions like 'I read in the stormer that Jews control the weather and started the hurricaine to collect insurance money. Can anyone prove this isn't true?' As long as your question isn't like that, ask it.

Answer 3

The problem I have with "historical" questions based on games of this kind is that the purpose of the game is primarily entertainment, with "history" (and historical accuracy, way down on the list of priorities. The likely result is that history is likely to get bent or twisted for the sake of the game. That is to say that the game might contain "some" elements that are suggested or inspired by "history" without coming close enough to the actual facts to the be accurate. The danger is that games, and questions based on games, are likely to introduce "false facts." that "pass" as "history," thereby misleading, rather than educating, players.

The one game featured a boy who could look into the future and see that his potential career paths branched into 1) the "King of England" or 2) a "scientist" who was a disciple of Faraday. The resulting question was, which boy does this "best" describe. The answer was Prince Albert, Consort of Queen Victoria. The problem is that it introduces several inaccuracies. 1) "Prince Consort of England is no the same as "king" (close, but no cigar). 2) Albert was not a "scientist," only a sponsor of science, but the member of the royal family most likely to do this. 3) Michael Faraday never gave a Christmas lecture in 1831, and Albert would have met him in a much later year.

Here's another example: There is a World War II game, Allies and Axis, where the Allies have a clear advantage, but the Axis can win if they "get lucky" with the dice. One might ask, is this game an accurate representation of the war? Did the Axis actually have a 1-in-10 or 1-in-5 chance of winning the war as of spring, 1942? Answer: No, because in the game, the U.S. has only one-third or so of its historical capacity, enough to make the allies favorites, but not enough to "guarantee" allied Victory.

This is the kind of "history" I would rather not deal with on this site.