This may not be a very safe way of thinking about these things, but I find it easier to process on a level of 'human' interaction: I have a 'guy' who is amazingly good at ferreting out a specific answer to a question for me. But that guy, however fast and perceptive, cannot actually dump large blocks of knowledge and expertise into my mind wholesale. I still need to do the learning to provide the context, nuance, and questions myself. E.G I can ask 'who won the world cup in 1966' and get the answer, and perhaps a hint of any controversy surrounding referee decisions. But I won't get 'the striker used this style of kick to score the winning goal, this is why that made sense from that position, and here are ways it would have played out if he'd picked a different kick' - at least not unless I already know the game well enough to know that it makes sense to ask those things, and that they're questions I might find relevant to what I'm doing.
And, as has already been noted above, I can't be sure that my question finding guy isn't unreasonably biased in the answer they give, either by intent or by accident. They can tell me 'England vs Germany, England won, winning goal was allowed on refs decision but controversial'. It's not likely to tell me that even modern England players, on seeing the footage played back, look pretty uncomfortable publicly saying that ball was more over the line than not. Or that the rules of the time state pretty clearly that it is the refs decision that makes it an allowed goal, and that decision is final. It doesn't tell me the ref's name, or how making that call affected his life. Those things are where I, and a lot of others, find an interesting story to be had - but if I don't know enough about the event, already, to think to ask my guy will never know to tell me. And, if trained my a 'misguided' England fan, it may not tell me even if I do ask.