The Instigator
slammin
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
gahbage
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points

Wikipedia is a Good Source to Use while Debating

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,365 times Debate No: 5031
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (11)

 

slammin

Con

I will just start out with something small to begin with and let my opponent begin with bringing up other points. Really, WIkipedia is not a valid source to use while debating because anybody can go on and change information. That's it. The information can seem real, but actually be completely the opposite of what you thought. Other sites like www.abcnews.com and other sites that are professional and viewers cannot change info.

Thank you and I await my opponents response! :)

~Slammin
gahbage

Pro

Thanks you slammin for starting this debate.

My opponent begins with a common anti-Wikipedia argument: that anyone can edit it, at any time. However, this is not a flaw, but an asset, for two main reasons:

1. It opens up to a variety of people.

By letting anyone edit it, Wikipedia can open itself up to many different people from different fields of knowledge, allowing for a more accurate source.

2. Pages without credible sources are deleted quickly.

If anyone can edit it at any time, surely it must be subject to vandalism. However, vandalized pages are quickly corrected or taken down. So are pages without valid sources. If the article cites a credible course such as your abcnews.com, then it is just as good as using abcnews.com itself, and is faster.

For example, here is a link to another Wikipedia debate:

http://www.debate.org...

In Con's R1, she posted a link to a false/vandalized/spam page, by editing the page for the color Yellow. However, if you click her link now, it will take you to the correct definition/article for Yellow. This was corrected three hours later (probably sooner, but that was when the link was checked).

I urge you to find a page containing false information, that does not have a warning on it or is not up for review.
Debate Round No. 1
slammin

Con

I have waited almost as long as I can, but I won't be able to post my next argument in time. I have 5 hours and I am going to school in 30 minutes so...I will post my next argument as a comment. So sorry for the inconvienice! But I will post an argument around 5-ish today! Thanks!
gahbage

Pro

"During those few minutes on the site, the information could have just been posted and be wrong."

This a problem with any internet source, since the scenario you suggested can be applied to any website. In that case, you might as well argue against using any website as a source.

"Plus, I would say most teachers don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a source for school projects, so why should it be acceptable to a debate?"

That depends on the teacher's personal preference, not on the credibility of Wikipedia. Some teachers may agree with me, and some may agree with you.

"As for the abcnews.com comment. That is true, but again, they may site abcnews but how do you know that it's 100% correct and all from ABC News? You don't."

Well, you did use it as an example of a site you could use as a source... =P

"Take for example: If it was a debate in the decreasing fish population and they post a link to Wikipedia that states: 500,000 fish die every day from overfishing and cite ABC News, but on ABC News the cited article really says: 5,000 fish die daily. They are similiar in appreance, but totally different."

There are a couple problems with this example. First, the author of the Wikipedia article would most likely copy-and-paste the cited information, so there is no danger of misquoting or misinterpreting. Also, the problem would probably be fixed quickly, as we have seen with the example of the page for "Yellow". Furthermore, most opponents would probably check the site themselves for credibility, misquotations by their opponent or other information.

"But, as I was saying, if it was not a debate where the debaters are debating over Wikipedia, they may check once or twice while constructing their next argument and then never look back again, risking the possibility of having wrong information."

See my earlier paragraph. The opponent of the person who is citing any source will most likely check the link themselves. Virtually every time someone posts a link, you would be a fool to just accept the information, rather than examining it yourself.
Debate Round No. 2
slammin

Con

slammin forfeited this round.
gahbage

Pro

I guess that's it . Extend all my arguments.

You know, this character limit is kind of pointless...
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
I dont think we export more mary jane than corn, beans, etc. Too much domestic demand, plus its illegal, so the export of marijuana does not fall under the free trade act.

I wish I never found this out,.. Its like finding out Santa isnt real,.. you just dont want to believe its true.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Regardless, do we export more crops than we deal drugs?
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
WOW! Agriculture isnt our first priority?

cotton, potatoes, corn, soybean, fruit, wheat, etc etc! Beef, pork, poultry, dairy!

Food?

Multi billion dollar industries per crop.

I can't believe marijuana could even be considered or accurately measured,.. who is reporting their sales, lol.

Too weird for me. Kind of scary to.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Well, there ARE alot or drug dealers, and agriculture isn't exactly our first priority...
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
LOL,... It still says that marijuana**(sp), is the leading cash crop of the USA!

That has been up for several months.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
I believe I did a wikipedia search on the united states at one time,.. It said the leading export was marijuana,..That was several months ago,... I am curious to see if it is still there,..
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Personally, I can't wait for school...
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Yes, given that the majority of this website is made up of "middle/high school dwellers", I'd say that user activity will take a big dive for quite a while.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
You have school now? That sucks.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
slammingahbageTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
slammingahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Insanebunny 8 years ago
Insanebunny
slammingahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
slammingahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
slammingahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
slammingahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
slammingahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by doubled6 8 years ago
doubled6
slammingahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
slammingahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Josh 8 years ago
Josh
slammingahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03