graham

From Wikipedia if you don't mind that as a source:

Herodotus records in his Histories not only the events of the Persian Wars, but also geographical and ethnographical information, as well as the fables related to him during his extensive travels. Typically, he passes no definitive judgment on what he has heard. In the case of conflicting or unlikely accounts, he presents both sides, says what he believes and then invites readers to decide for themselves.

I really vibe with Herodotus. I think it's more captivating in fiction to have conflicting facts (see Skeen's backstory) with spaces left open to interpretation than to be able to look up exactly who or what for everything. For history too, I think there's a balance to be struck for including multiple perspectives and then suggesting what your beliefs are, given that info, versus trying to present everything in as "objective" a way as possible. This becomes more important, imo, as we get cameras and computers and delude ourselves into thinking that technology will make viewing frames perfectly objective.

Herodotus views history as a source of moral lessons, with conflicts and wars as misfortunes flowing from initial acts of injustice perpetuated through cycles of revenge.[64] In contrast, Thucydides claims to confine himself to factual reports of contemporary political and military events, based on unambiguous, first-hand, eye-witness accounts,[65] although, unlike Herodotus, he does not reveal his sources. Thucydides views life exclusively as political life, and history in terms of political history. Conventional moral considerations play no role in his analysis of political events while geographic and ethnographic aspects are omitted or, at best, of secondary importance.

My thesis is that "true objectivity" is impossible, and to try to conform to it is an effort in futility. Lore for telling stories should probably be balanced somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum - some parts need to be concrete facts (things make sound in space in this universe, lightsabers can cut through all but a select few materials, etc) but most should err towards Herodotus's method of presenting perspectives and generally providing an (even if it's implicit) opinion about which perspective is true or morally in the right.

That all being said, there's nothing wrong with making personal projects that are complex sudoku puzzles of worldbuilding. Great stuff (like Dwarf Forteress or Caves of Qud) can come out of building intentionally complex yet internally consistent systems and watching what happens. The difference is that the stories there are emergent rather than being told on purpose.