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

Is Wikipedia a reliable source.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/3/2018 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 512 times Debate No: 107549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




I actually believe that it is a reliable source... I'm just doing this to see what I can do...

By most teachers, Wikipedia is not allowed to be used to prove evidence. This is because anyone is allowed to edit... I don't know anything about many things, and I could put anything about anyone. Many people use it to post their opinions and not facts. Wikipedia is just there for "fake news"


Ironically, that there is a lot of misinformation spreading around about Wikipedia and its reliability as a source. I'd like to address these one by one, and I will do the same for my opponent's remarks.

1. Anyone can edit anything on WP.
This is technically true, but not really.
A. Some articles are protected (ex. Don T.)
B. Citations are needed.
C. Paid moderators check every edit.

2. WP is not recognized by scholarly bodies.
A. Harvard has rated WP more accurate than Encyclopedia Brit
Debate Round No. 1


I guess that is true, but "Encyclopedia Brit" is very unreliable. And, Harvard isn't the highest rated school. Stanford says that Wikipedia is unreliable and shouldn't be used.

Even though it has no adds, it does beg for money all the time, that can be very annoying.


1. Stanford is not the highest rated school, according to QS World University ratings, MIT is the top rated; and they, along with the University of Pittsburgh, published a paper saying that Wikipedia was a reliable source.

2. Your arguement for badgering about donations has no value whatsoever.
A. I don't see you complaining about TV or YouTube ads, which are harder to get rid of, unlike WP's requests that you can easily exit.
B. It's a nonprofit. Where do you expect it to get its money from?
Debate Round No. 2


Wikipedia its self, says that it is not a reliable source. Saying that it is, would say that Wikipedia is lying and would show that it isn't reliable...



No intention here to be nasty, but the link you site from literally says right at the top, "It contains the opinions of one or more of Wikipedia's Contributors. (AKA, the people you say are always lying with fake news, not the actual people working at Wikipedia.)"

Wikipedia is not flawless but it is probably one of the most reliable sources out there.

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by GenericPilot 5 months ago
MIT-UoP Paper:
Posted by Canada-is-fake 5 months ago
I agree. It is perfectly good. I just wanted to debate something.
Posted by Zombieguy835 5 months ago
Wikipedia is one of the best sources
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
It is an absolute source.
Posted by WOLF.J 5 months ago
Although anyone can edit, its controlled by a couple thousand hardcore editors, who fine tune edits.
Posted by alexmann152 5 months ago
Wikipedia can be a fine source... Kinda. You can see what sources it sites and examine those yourself to come to your own conclusions. Taken at face value it can be flawed but it can direct you where to need to go.
Posted by Actions_Speak 5 months ago
can view it*
Posted by Actions_Speak 5 months ago
Maybe this should be in forums instead of a debate.The answer is yes and no, no because it may be edited before your teacher can it. However generally yes, in addition the sources wiki lists at the bottom are indeed reliable.
No votes have been placed for this debate.