The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
J_Ash
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Wikipedia is a good source of information

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,146 times Debate No: 19341
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (7)

 

imabench

Pro

I hear it all the time on here and so do most of you, someone makes a reference to a Wikipedia article in a debate, the other side instantly claims that it is not a reliable source for information, but never actually explains why....

I have looked through many Wikipedia articles over the years and all of them are neutral over controversial issues, straightforward in anything relating to math, gives reasonably accurate statistics about past wars, and gives both sides of the story on historical events such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc. and it only uses general facts for anything else

The Con must argue that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source under any circumstances.

The Con is allowed to use the first round to state their arguments.

If you accept this don't be a troll or end up forfeiting every round.
J_Ash

Con

I would like to start off the debate by thanking my opponent imabench for debating with me on this topic, seeing as i am also constantly hearing that wikipedias information is foley

first of all, wikipedia defines itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." you will find this quote on the homepage of wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org.... As you can see, it defines itself as something that anyone, including various "trolls" on the internet, may edit so that the information it produces is false. As bestcollegesonline.com states, on very large wikipedia "blunder" was a page that told of ted keneddy's death Bestcollegesonline.com states that: "A very high profile Wikipedia blunder falsely reported the "death" of Sen. Edward Kennedy after he actually did suffer a seizure during the post-inaugural luncheon for Barack Obama in January 2009. The Washington Post reports that Kennedy's Wikipedia entry was edited at 2:59p.m. ET "to say that he had died" by someone who registered on the site under the name "Gfdjklsdgiojksdkf."(bestcollegesonline.com).

I believe this is enough information to prove wikipedia is an unacceptable resource. Thank you, and i look forward to your rebuttle
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

The Con has offered only one example of one mistake that Wikipedia made in the past that has since been fixed, I fail to see how that completely renders Wikipedia as a poor source of information.

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
J_Ash

Con

I would like to start off this round of debate with negating the Pro's arguments, and bringing up some of my own if time (or characters) allows

First, only one example is needed for this argument, for it clearly presents the fact that wikipedia is liable to modification so that the page presents false information. I cannot imagine how the Pro failed to hear this for i clearly stated that "it defines itself as something that anyone, including various "trolls" on the internet, may edit so that the information it produces is false" and then proceded to show an example.

Second, The Pro states that there are "a great number of normal reasonable people who all have some knowledge of an event". The Pro states "some knowledge", by this the Pro is stating that they do not have complete and utter knowledge of "an event" which is another extremely vague statement and should therefore not be followed up on if you have no evidence to prove it.

Third, The Pro states that "there are a enormous number of people who watch for changes made to any article ", first of all, I would prefer to see a more specific number than a vague statement such as "an enormous number". Second, there are 3,719,838 pages on wikipedia according to http://en.wikipedia.org...
and this means it would take this supposed "enourmous amount of people" days if not weeks to months to find and review all of the pages, not to mention the research it would require for the legitimizing of said pages.

Fourth, The Pro states that the pages CAN be locked, once this alleged team of "thousands of people" find it. as i stated previously, there are about 3,719,838 pages on wikipedia, which would make difficult the task of finding foley information on one of the pages.

fifth, The Pro has stated no evidence in which he may present to me the fact that supporters of sarah palin changed wikipedia's information on paul revere. If The Pro could prove that this happened, then he would only be supporting the fact that wikipedia is very vulnerable to false modification, and thus proving it a illegitamite resource.

sixth, The Pro states that the wikipedia team could not find and correct a flaw in the information of a page that raised an "implication that stood for sometime without being corrected". in this time, many people likely viewed the article and aqired false information. Additionally, i fail to see how the Pro's statement showed that wikipedia can grow stronger, for he states no evidence to prove so. Also, an "old saying" should NOT be evidence to this.

seventh, i hardly think that there have only been one or two wikipedia pages that have carried "some false information", in fact, the evidence i showed in my first speech shows not one or two, but twenty-five.

eighth, if you these theorems are so "famous" then why not look them up on various other websites that are nnot liable to false editing so that one may be sure that it is not false information they are gathering from wikipedia. Additionally, i would greatly apreciate it if the Pro had any evidence to back up his arguments.

ninth, I really do not apreciate that i have to stress the amount of wikipedia slip-ups, it is in fact, not just "one or two".

Now, i would like to bring up a new argument

first, wikipedia is largely a website constructed for convenience rather than quality. as http://www.insidehighered.com...
states, professers and teachers around the nation are very strict with the usage of wikipedia as a source, and will not permit it as a valid cite for information. This has even gone to the point that the history department at middlebury college is barring the use of wikipedia in their classes.

Thank you and i look forward to your future rebuttle.
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

"the Pro is stating that they do not have complete and utter knowledge of "an event" which is another extremely vague statement and should therefore not be followed up on if you have no evidence to prove it."

How do I have to show sources to prove that people have general knowledge of worldly events????? I dont need to show a source that people know that World War 2 was fought between the Allied and Axis powers, that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, that George Bush is from Texas, etc.

Number of people who monitor changes to Wiki Articles = 89,000 with 2,000 on payroll
http://www.infotoday.com...

The Con does not know how Wikipedia works at all because when a change is made to any one article, the administrators are notified of the change and decide whether the change is legit or if it is just spam or vandalism. There are 3+ Million pages but the administrators do not have to constantly look over every page like the Con believes, they are notified of any changes made to any article, can examine those changes, and then decide to keep them or not.

Evidence of the Sarah Palin - Paul Revere incident on Wikipedia = http://www.theroot.com...

This story proves though that Wikipedia can be resilient to false modification because the Wiki administrators found the constant modifications these followers tried to make to the Wiki article because they failed in their objective, the truth was preserved, and Paul Revere's article today still only gives true facts.

For your 6th point, acquired is spelled with a Q, but more importantly I showed how the error was found, corrected, and is now protected from any further vandalism. What was exposed before is now protected. Also the old saying I used was a simply a comparison, I wasnt using it as an actual source so relax.

Your source found 25 errors that today no longer exist on Wikipedia out of 3 Million + articles in English alone,

25 / 3,000,000 = .0000083% = error rate
1 / .0000083 = 120,482

So with the Con's argument for every 1 mistake in the PAST made on a Wiki article, about 120,482 articles were never inaccurate, is that ratio too low for a site to be considered unreliable?

As for the 8th argument, an equation is always an equation i dont need a source to prove that.

"why not look them up on various other websites that are nnot liable to false editing so that one may be sure that it is not false information they are gathering from wikipedia?"

Because the information is still correct if you actually took the time to look it up instead of asking me to show you, but here is some proof showing how famous laws and equations On wikipedia are just the same to how other websites describe them,

Newtons Laws
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Einsteins E=Mc^2
http://www.worsleyschool.net...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Fibonacci Sequence
http://mathworld.wolfram.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia gives all the same information as the rest of the web.

The majority of the Con's argument rests on the idea that Wikipedia should not be used under any circumstances because people can contribute information to articles and that information is always incorrect. But I have found many sources that show that Wikipedia is a very accurate source of information, in some cases it is even comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://howtosplitanatom.com...
http://news.cnet.com...
http://slashdot.org...
http://www.nationaltechcenter.org...

This is my favorite because A Nobel Prize winner in chemisty who teaches at FSU says that Wikipedia is more reliable than his own textbooks (Sir Harold Kroto)
http://www.reflector-online.com...

Also the Vandalism the Con is using in his argument is not as big as a problem as the Con wants you to believe. Vandalism of articles affects less than 1% of all Wiki Articles
http://www.cbsnews.com...

Wikipedia is a good source of information because even though anybody can contribute to it, any changes must first be approved by the administrators, vandalism is only a very small problem, and the information on the Wiki articles have been proven by many different researchers and studies to be a very accurate source for information
J_Ash

Con

I would like to kick off my turn of this debate by thanking my opponent for the evidence he has provided. I will now continue to negate the Pro's arguments, and then continue to make my own points if Characters allow.

1st

You merely said that some people had some knowledge of AN event, you did not specify which event, and by evidence I was trying to portray that I would like that you provide with some form of example and a source would always be helpful.

2nd

Clearly what I was saying is, If I had to take the time to look it up rather than just trust Wikipedia then why not just use a trusted site that is not liable to modification.

3rd

My source found the 25 biggest Wikipedia blunders, if you actually took time to look at the site, then clearly you would understand that there are more, if you really need more proof, then here you go:
http://www.vancouversun.com...
This source states that there are well over 100,000 wikipedia blunders, which is about a 1 in 70 sabotage rate, and with about 89,000 people to check at least 100,000 pages completely for factual errors, thee articles are likely to be up some time and people will continue to gather faulty information.
If you really need any more proof, here is another 15
http://www.pcworld.com...

4th

The Pro's own source (where the Nobel Prize winner ostensibly favors wikipedia) has this to say:
"I think more often than not, Wikipedia does contain reliable, cited information, but the inherent danger lies in its editable nature. If the information can be manipulated by practically anyone, it's no longer reliable – which is why I don't believe that students should consider Wikipedia a credible source for academic research."
Trim said he thinks Wikipedia is unlikely to ever be a citable resource for students.

5th

The Pro's own source yet again proceeds to contradict the Pro's argument. The Pro would have you believe that "Vandalism of articles affects less than 1% of all Wiki Articles". But http://www.cbsnews.com...
Actually states that Only a fraction of 1 percent of all articles needs to be locked. In fact, according to this source, Wikipedia's creator even knows of the weaknesses of his website and in fact warns that a reader of Wikipedia should think about the legitimacy of the article they are reading.

6th,

As far as the Sarah Palin incident, the source you provided did not state that the Wikipedia editors locked the page. Therefore, the Pro's statement should fall

7th,

I have checked the following four sites that you have provided, all of them say that there are at least 3 to 4 errors per page. This proves that Wikipedia is NOT in fact a valid source
http://howtosplitanatom.com......
http://news.cnet.com......
http://slashdot.org......
http://www.nationaltechcenter.org......

I will tie up this round of debate by saying that I thank you, imabench, for correcting my spelling, and im sorry I did not attempt to do the same for you. Thank you very much for this astounding round of debate and I look forward to you next starting argument in the future rounds.
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

Response to the Con's 7 points:

1) If you only wanted me to provide a specific example of an event that people know about in general and give an example then I will give one.

Many people know that that the weights of certain objects differ on different planets due to gravitational pull.
http://www.algebra.com...

2) Well in that case then looking it up on other sites would just be a choice of opinion

3) The source you give only implies there were over 100,000 mistakes and then only goes on to list the 10 most famous ones. There is no source that actually says how many times Wikipedia has been wrong, any sites that do have something only show 5 or 10 actual examples of Wikipedia mistakes.

These alleged 100,000 mistakes also didnt happen all at once, they may have happened over a period of time. Since Wikipedia started in January of 2001 (10 years and 10 months ago = 3,956 days including leap years) then the alleged 100,000 mistakes on average is about 25 changes a day for 89,000 people to handle. Any that do slip through are identified and replaced and if anyone acquired wrong information it was simply bad luck.

4) As for my source in question, the Con is correct but that came from a different professor but the professor did say that Wikipedia is a good source for general information and that it only falls short on scholarly information aka really new and advanced stuff.

5) A fraction of 1% = less than 1%, just wanted to make that clear...
This is what the site actually has Sanger saying,

"The weaknesses are, yes, it's updated in real time," Wales said. "It's being edited constantly ... You need to have some consideration if you ... read something that seems a little crazy you should stop and think about it."

He is saying that if you read something that seems a little off THEN you should think about its legitimacy, he doesnt say anything about questioning the legitimacy of each and every last Wiki article

6) Sources showing Wikipedia had to lock the page from editors.
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://www.adn.com...
http://origin.9news.com...
http://mattblair.ca...

So my argument still stands

7) The sources show how Wikipedia has 3 to 4 errors per story (minor) and that Encyclopedia Britannica has 2 to 3 errors per story. However since Wikipedia articles are 2 or more times longer than the same articles provided by Encyclopedia Britannica then the average number of errors are equal to the number of errors of Encyclopedia Britannica articles when length is taken into account.

(as for the spelling thing i only have a pet peeve about spelling errors ill refrain from doing it again)
J_Ash

Con

Response to Pro's counter-points

1. I thank you for finally letting me know what you mean by this, but my argument still stands, with all of the mishaps and errors going on with Wikipedia it is best to utilize other sources available when one is searching for information.

2. People likely look on Wikipedia to find out information, what I am saying is that people should be informed that Wikipedia is notorious for being an invalid source so that they have the option to legitimate information.

3. It is true that there are several websites listing famous Wikipedia blunders in groups of "top 5's" or "top 10's" at a time. This is only Because Wikipedia has made over 100,000 failed articles. I hardly think Any person would ever give up a portion of their life to list every single Wikipedia blunder in History, that would be absolutely ridiculous.

4. I hardly think Scholarly is defined as "new and advanced stuff". Is an Ancient world historian not a scholar? The oxford dictionary defines Scholarly as "having or showing knowledge, learning, or devotion to academic pursuits". So, in other words, anyone willing to look up information that is even remotely considered scholarly must not be trusted.

5. Regarding how one judges the legitimacy of Wikipedia.

It is more than likely that one would go to the Wikipedia site to find information that they do not know. In this case, how could one figure out if a piece of information was "a little off"?

6. I now Agree with you on this part, seeing as you have finally shown that it was locked, but 1: why present 4 different sites? and 2: If you do not mind, could you also link the page that was locked.

7. If Wikipedia has "only 3 or 4" errors per article, and there are approximately 3,719,838 articles on Wikipedia
(lets say 3.5 is the average amount of errors in Wikipedia) 3.5 x 3719838 = 13,019,433 errors on Wikipedia. I fail to see how this is possibly considered minor.

Additionally, I'm sorry if you felt I was expressing some hostility from the spelling error, I merely felt as though I should have expressed the same to you (but we should end this topic here as this has nothing to do with the debate)

Yet again, I thank you for such an interesting debate and I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 4
imabench

Pro

Last round(finally) Ill give some quick final remarks and then end with a statement

1) The point of this argument was to show that people who contribute to wiki articles often know about the subject they are editing, and they are not editing the whole thing they only edit the part of the article (whatever it may be) that they know about. Also anything they do edit is examined first by the couple thousand editors and only then is approved or deleted.

2) Wikipedia is known for occasionally being an invalid source on some information, but I am trying to show that Wikipedia in general is a very decent source of information

3) I believe that no site would show each and every screw up in Wikipedia, what I was questioning though is that the one source you gave only implies there is 100,000 errors. I tried to find out how many Wikipedia errors there were but every link i found only showed 5 to 10.

There isnt a source that definately states that there are 100,000 errors on Wikipedia, the source the con gave only implis there are but doesnt offer any evidence of how they found this alleged 100,000

4) That depends on what the definition of the word "scholarly" that he was referring too. He may be referring to anything advanced like you said or anything that is relatively new and complicated. It all depends on the context of the quote:

"It's great for general information, but as a scholarly resource it falls short."

It all depends on the term scholarly.... and even then the quote is just showing his opinion of Wikipedia

5) So we agree then that only a very very small proportion of information on Wikipedia is subject to vandalism?

6) I provided 4 different sources just to be safe in case one of them didnt work, which source didnt work though when I tried all four of them they all worked fine....

7) If Wikipedia has 3.5 errors per page then according to the sources the Encyclopedia Britannica has about 2.5 errors per page even though they have half the information on any subject compared to Wikipedia

Wikipedia = 3.5 errors x 3,719,838 = 13,019,433 errors
Encyclopedia Britannica = 2.5 errors x 3,719,838 x 2 (since their articles are shorter than Wikipedia) = 18,599,190

So to summarize following the Cons logic
Wiki mistakes = 13,019,433
Ecyc. Brit. = 9,299,595 mistakes
Ecyc. Brit. = 18,599,190 mistakes if length of information between both were equal.

Wikipedia may be known for some historic blunders, but many sources and studies show that Wikipedia is very accurate when it comes down to many different subjects. Many sites and studies also find that the information found on Wikipedia is comparable to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica. This combined with the thousands of people who constantly keep Wikipedia up to date, along with the low number of vandalism that does occur on the website, along with the response and protection of articles that are subjected to vandalism, makes me feel that Wikipedia is indeed a reliable source.

http://howtosplitanatom.com...
http://news.cnet.com...
http://slashdot.org...
http://www.nationaltechcenter.org...
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com...

I thank the Con for a very, very awesome debate and I would also like to thank any voters who read through all this for their endurance and patience.

:D
J_Ash

Con

I will end this debate by countering my opponent's statements. Also, I am sorry for the late response, for i have been feeling a tad under the weather and have been essentially immobile for the whole day.

1. The point I have been trying to make this entire debate is that you do not in fact know if someone is only editing the part of an article that they ostensibly know about. Refer to my previous arguments if you need further proof.

2. I hardly think the term occasionally is appropriate for the amount of blunders Wikipedia's free editing system is responsible for. Additionally, if you are admitting it is an invalid source, why should it be trusted?

3. This source I gave was from the Vancouver sun news paper, and it does not simply imply it, it flat out says "It's estimated there are 100,000 ‘sabotaged' pages on Wikipedia"

4. I fail to see how "anything new and complicated" could be considered scholarly, it may be possible that such things could be created by scholarly people, but you fail to provide a source proving your definition, so i assume we should just stick with mine

5. What I was saying is that if one believed that, for some reason, Wikipedia is a legitimate source, they would be more trusting with the site and be susceptible to false information from the site, and if one did not trust Wikipedia, they would not use it and be safe from acquiring false knowledge

6. By this I clearly did not mean that any of your sources was faulty, i merely asked you to link the site that was locked in result of the Palin-follower vandalisms to Wikipedia. Unfortunately you did not do so, and therefore, both of us will never know to what extent this site was locked.

7. How do you know how much longer the articles are for the Encyclopedia Britannica? and additionally, How many articles are there? I would have liked to see this before you provided these calculations.

In conclusion, Wikipedia, notorious for it's factual blunders, is not a site to be trusted. Why else would schools across the nation bar it as a reliable source? I believe i have provided far enough information to say that it is Fact that Wikipedia has no right to say it is a reliable source. Thank you for this WONDERFUL debate, seeing as it is my first, and I urge the Judges to vote for the Con.

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
lol chrysippus
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
lol, Chrysippus, you're right. Is that technically a confession of defeat?
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
Imabench, I am disappointed in you. You used sources other than Wikipedia for this debate.

Hypocrite. :P

Having gotten that out of my system, let me go actually read this so I know how to vote.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Also, in the final round, Con says (in regards to point 7) "How do you know how much longer the articles are for the Encyclopedia Britannica? and additionally, How many articles are there? I would have liked to see this before you provided these calculations."

It is pointless to ask questions because Pro cannot respond. Also, the fact that Wiki is about twice as long was already brought up in an early source. The fact that Con missed that is no fault of Pro's.

I would also say that Pro should focus less on individual examples and more on the study comparing Wiki to Britannica (and other such studies), since you're looking for a big picture trend, not single examples.

A good article for this is the "Reliability of Wikipedia" wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Cont. from RFD. Con would need to have shown that Britannica is not a reliable source, or that Wiki had more errors than it. At no point was it ever implied that Pro's burden was to show that Wiki never makes any errors or that it was perfect.

Even though Pro set a rediculus BoP for con, I believe that had there been a more balanced BoP, con still would have failed, due to failing this point.

Con also messed up by trying to point out the shear number of errors and calling them "not minor" due to the volume of error. "Minor" refers to the quality of the error, not the quantity of them.

For example, in the recent event of whats-his-name, shooting a rifle at the whitehouse. Wiki mistakenly listed the weapon as an AK-47, when it was infact, a Romanian Cugir SA rifle. This is an error, but in context of the event, has little to no effect. As such, it is classified as a minor error.
Posted by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
My source found the 25 biggest Wikipedia blunders, if you actually took time to look at the site, then clearly you would understand that there are more, if you really need more proof, then here you go:
http://www.vancouversun.com......
"This source states that there are well over 100,000 wikipedia blunders, which is about a 1 in 70 sabotage rate, and with about 89,000 people to check at least 100,000 pages completely for factual errors, thee articles are likely to be up some time and people will continue to gather faulty information.
If you really need any more proof, here is another 15
http://www.pcworld.com...;

This is a powerful point that really couldn't be adequately delt with. Even if it's off by a small percentage it demonstrates massive numbers of errors. Personally i have found biases errors and omissions in Wiki.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
i always am scared to death over the last round
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
sorry to say imabench is winning up to now, but last round usually changes the tide for the contender.
Posted by J_Ash 5 years ago
J_Ash
my first ever debate on this site! thank you so much!
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
lol, im ADDICTED to this site though :D
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
imabenchJ_AshTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides make a lot of assumptions. I find the issue to be two fold, good and information. The argument seemed to be about reliable information, irrelevant to the debate.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
imabenchJ_AshTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an impossible task by saying "all circumstances" but Con proved otherwise it was not a reliable source. Sources are tied but because Con proved it was not I award him 2 points! Conduct goes to Con because Pro made an impossible task and Con was much less hostile and apologized for whatever was going on!
Vote Placed by SquadSix 5 years ago
SquadSix
imabenchJ_AshTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I have always believed in Wikipedia for everytime I have looked something up it was always right from historical events, to music, to even just random facts. This was a very good read but Imabench gets my votes. He also, in my opinion, gave better sources and arguments against J_Ash.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
imabenchJ_AshTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Close debate, but Pro narrowly wins. The points that pushed this in his favor: he showed how Wikipedia is corrected as mistakes are made, and that it has a comparable error rate to the big EB.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
imabenchJ_AshTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: The BOP, as stated in the opening round was, "The Con must argue that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source under any circumstances." This really makes it impossible for Con, since if only 1 wiki article is accurate, then Pro wins. So Pro looses conduct for that, aswell as not presenting any evidence for his arguments until round 3 (links should really be done in R2, come out fast and strong). Pro also showed that Wiki is about as accurate as Britanica. Cont. in comments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
imabenchJ_AshTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Although wikipedia is totally accurate (because you need an account to edit now and they check the edits) Imabench never said this, if he did then the main argument of con 'anyone cqan edit' would have been overruled.
Vote Placed by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
imabenchJ_AshTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's facts were just impossible to overcome. see my rfd in comments.