The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is Wikipedia Good?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 30036
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I use websites like Wikipedia all of the time for information and I have never received incorrect information from Wikipedia.

Obviously, nobody is perfect and there will always be a mistake somewhere, in something. However that does not mean that Wikipedia is utterly useless.

Previously I have found it quite useful, the layout is easier than that of some other websites and there is always a lot of information.


I think that wikipedia is not good to get the information.Because as i note there are all articles are not relaible .
Debate Round No. 1


Wikipedia is defined as the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, however just because everyone can edit it does not mean that everyone will go on just to vandalize articles. Wikipedia is much like this very website, it has its trolls and spammers but there are still a great number of normal reasonable people who all have some knowledge of an event. On Wikipedia there are a enormous number of people who watch for changes made to any article and if a troll does attack, thousands of people will be notified of a change made to an article and if the information is completely wrong it can quickly be deleted.

Basic articles in Wikipedia can also be locked, which means that the text of an article cannot be changed by any trolls. When Sarah Palin made a public blunder about Paul Revere's ride for example, many of her supporters tried to edit the Wikipedia entry to change what was said about Paul Revere's ride to make Sarah Palin seem correct. The Wiki editors though quickly responded, restored the original text, and then locked down the article about Paul Revere so that no other trolls, or misinformed Palin supporters in this case, could troll the Wiki page of Paul Revere.

The biggest reason people dont trust Wikipedia is that there was an incident on the site in the past where someone tried to implicate John Seigenthaler as a contributor to the assassination of JFK, an implication that stood for sometime without being corrected. When it was found though the Wiki page was quickly changed and because of the incident many people now monitor over the page to make sure such an event doesn't happen again.

What this shows is that Wikipedia can fix itself and grow stronger and more reliable. "What doesnt kill you makes you stronger" is an old saying that can apply to Wikipedia because if an article is vandalized and enough people find out about the vandalization, then the Wiki page that was vandalized will be closely monitored to make sure it doesnt happen again.

The Point is that Wikipedia can grow stronger every time someone vandalizes a Wiki article because after it happens enough people become aware of the incident and protect the Wiki page from future vandalism.

Just because 1 or 2 Wiki pages carried some false information for a period of time does not mean that Wikipedia can never ever be used for accurate information. If you wish to look up a math equation such as the Pythagorean Theorem or any of Newton's laws of motion, they are always accurate. Einsteins famous E = M x C ^2 equation is correct to, so are countless other math equations and concepts over the years. Science wise the atomic masses of Hydrogen or Uranium are also accurately displayed, along with their isotopes, neutron count, number of protons, etc. all is accurately found on Wikipedia. Bibliographies, birth dates, death dates, hometowns, and spouses of famous people are also there, along with dates of battles, declarations of war, and weapons used in both of them too.

Wikipedia gets a bad wrap for being unreliable as a source of information because of one or two slip ups they made, but with millions of other Wiki articles that right now are under the watchful eyes of thousands of editors Wikipedia is a very good source of information


Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles, nor should any mirrors or forks of Wikipedia be accepted as reliable sources for any purpose.
Debate Round No. 2


Nurlan forfeited this round.


Meiramgul forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by rross 3 years ago
Hang on...what's going on here? I just voted on your other debate that was EXACTLY THE SAME but with the positions reversed. Weird.
No votes have been placed for this debate.