The Instigator
guitarlover33
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Is wikipedia a good source of information

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 3 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,937 times Debate No: 21523
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

guitarlover33

Con

I Criteria's

II Burden of Responsibility

III Debate Round Structure

I Criteria’s. Criteria’s for a good source are as follows: Does it have all critical information covered thoroughly? Does it present the information as objectively as much as possible? Are the sources reliable? Are bias kept at a minimum? For this debate, we are going to use the English wikipedia.http://www.wikipedia.org...

II Burden of Responsibility

Pro-Will explain why wikipedia is a good source of information

Con-Will explain why wikipedia is not a good source of information

III Debate Round Structure

Round 1-Acceptance

Round 2-Arguments

Round 3-Counterarguments/ Rebuttal

Round 4-Closing Arguments

I look forward to hearing from the other side. Happy debating.








ConservativePolitico

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
guitarlover33

Con

Before I get down to the main arguments, I would like to thank the pro for accepting the challenge.

Main Argument 1 Anyone can edit the information

Anyone can go in an post any information. Because of open edit’s, Wikipedia is prone to misinformation. Most of those edits are from anonymous users. In addition, courts have ruled wikipedia as unreliable. One such example was a court in Texas. That court ruled Wikipedia entries as being “Inherently Unreliable [1].” Among the reasons cited in the ruling, anyone anonymously can edit.

Main Argument 2 Wikipedia does not always cite sources for their articles

There are several articles with unverified, missing links, or uncited sources. Even wikipedia admits this problem. “Another problem with a lot of content on Wikipedia is that many contributors do not cite their sources — something that makes it hard for the reader to judge the credibility of what is written [2].” One example of an article with plenty of uncited sources on Wikipedia is about Steel-string acoustic guitars. In that article there is only one source cited [3].

Main Argument 3 Wikipedia is biased

There is gender bias on wikipedia. According to a study done by the University of Minnesota, only 9% of the editors were female [4]. The study examined the profile of 110000 editors from 2005 to January 2011. In addition, many of those female editors leave wikipedia. This is also backed up by a survey done by the wikimedia foundation back in 2009[5]. In addition, there have been some cases of articles being edited in the person’s favor [5]. Furthermore, those cases include employees editing information about their colleagues.

Main Argument 4 Difficult to find the credentionals of authors

Most of the editors and authors on wikipedia are anonymous, and as a result, it is difficult to find their credentials [5]. In addition, many of them do not reveal information. A key element to remember when examing information on the internet is too determines the author credentials. An anonymous site like wikipedia cannot be relayed on for those reasons.

Thank you for reading my arguments. I look forward to hearing the other side’s view.

Sources

1. http://law.marquette.edu...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org...

 

ConservativePolitico

Pro

Contention 1

While anyone may be able to open edit Wikipedia for a brief period of time, in many cases your edit does not even get published and if it is published it is subject to extensive fact checks. If your information does not pass these checks it is then blocked from publishing and/or deleted.

Also, Wikipedia after extensive studies has been shown to be nearly as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. [1] In a study over a broad range of articles Wikipedia was found to only have 39 more errors than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Your court case was dated 2008 which was 4 years ago. Wikipedia really stepped up its image shortly after that and is not high accurate and accepted. My school accepts it as a source. Your source is out of date.

Contention 2

The fact that Wikipedia cites any sources is fantastic in and of itself. Most articles on the web never site sources about anything. Take for example this link: http://www.guitar-maker.com...

It is the history of the steel string guitar but there are no sources cited. Does this make this article completely unreliable? When searching "steel string guitar" on Google this was the second link presented and yet it cites no sources! By your logic this article is automatically less reliable than the Wikipedia page because it shows no sources.

If you think about it many sites do not have any sources at all of any kind.

Also, you picked on article on Wikipedia, there are articles with literally hundreds of sources. Take the page American Revolution on Wikipedia. There are 135 cited sources, roughly 50 References given and roughly 100 works in the Bibliography. [2] As you can see this site is clearly a good source of information for the topic of the American Revolution.

Most sites on the Internet don't site sources and the fact that Wikipedia is actually gives it a leg up on reliability and diversity.

Contention 3

Just because the editors are men doesn't mean that there is a gender bias. For the topic such as... the computer mouse. How can you insert gender bias? The only articles you could insert bias into would be in an extremely narrow niche such as Abortion or Birth Control and if you look at those articles you can see no signs of bias. You can't be biased about facts. Can you provide a specific quotable example of bias?

Also, your 5th source does not cite any sources. Therefore I cannot rely on the information given. That site is obviously not a credible source of information. Right?

Contention 4

The only time I can see missing credentials as a problem is if there are no sources posted. If there are sources posted you can count on the sources to fill in for credentials. What are your credentials? I don't need to know who you are to read your stuff and trust your words. Do you know who writes your local paper? Do you know who the editors of the NY Times are? Do you spend extensive time looking up who wrote your text books etc? I bet you don't.

Credentials don't matter if:

The information passes the Wikipedia fact checkers
Sources are posted

Posted sources with reliable information is an acceptable filler for credentials. Also people have the right to write under a pseudonym or anonymously. Many great authors wrote under a pen name to protect their identities such as Mark Twain. This does not hurt the value of the information.


[1] http://www.time.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
guitarlover33

Con

guitarlover33 forfeited this round.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

My opponent would rather delete his account than face me further.

Extend all points.
Debate Round No. 3
guitarlover33

Con

guitarlover33 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Sorry to disappoint folks but my opponent has deactivated his account...
Posted by communistman101 4 years ago
communistman101
I am a good source of information.
Wiki is for Jews.
Posted by bulldog101 4 years ago
bulldog101
you suck
SOMEBODY DEBATE ME :P punks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
It's a great source! My schools just retarded
Posted by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
Wikipedia only has slightly more errors than encyclopedia britannica. The plus side is its more up to date. I dont ever use it for a source, but I use the sources that are listed within wiki articles if there are any, after checking them for reliability of course. This should be an awesome debate!
Posted by Bones.KK 4 years ago
Bones.KK
i don't think wiki is a good source of info, it may have info, but it explains it too intelligently.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
guitarlover33ConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, Con uses Wikipeadi to prooves it's realialbe.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
guitarlover33ConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: is it me or did he use Wikipedia as a source when he thought it wasn't credible? FF
Vote Placed by Zetsubou 4 years ago
Zetsubou
guitarlover33ConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct//Forfeit Generally makes a good case; the gender bias argument was a textbook argumentum ad hominem.