The Instigator
CoronerPerry
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
gusgusthegreat
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Wikipedia is a reliable 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 9/15/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,691 times Debate No: 5407
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

CoronerPerry

Pro

This is a topic I wrote just because I was bored, and I want to see someone's opinion against this topic :-D

There is a common misconception that Wikipedia is an unreliable source. This belief is completely false. My evidence backing this up is on the website itself.

Every day, there are people adding the new information to Wikipedia. There are new discoveries every day, and Wikipedia always has the updates within hours of discovery. The information is posted on the front page of Wikipedia.org.

Ex.
�€�Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy protection and Merrill Lynch is to be sold to Bank of America as part of the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis.
It has many accounts over history, and you can literally find information on EVERY topic you can fathom.

Vote for Affirmation, that wikipedia is a reliable source of information.

Good luck Neg! I am looking forward to this debate
gusgusthegreat

Con

Wikipedia cannot be a reliable source of information. All is explained on Wikipedia's own "About" page. (Note as you read the following quote from the page that this page CAN'T be edited by just anyone as other pages can; we can deem it a valid article.)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

In the third paragraph from the top, Wikipedia itself states that ANYONE, even a two-year old or someone else with no knowledge of a topic can edit a page. You don't need to be a professional to suddenly know why the half-life of uranium is what it is. While obvious misnomers and mistakes are corrected, small, vital bits of information can be easily flawed. Dates, measurements, names, political candidates standings, or outcomes of major battles could be flawed indefinitely. Also, this page states that hundreds of thousands of people make edits EVERY day. So, which person is correct? The child?Or specialist? We can't know which bits are valid at any given time. AFF's argument is unsound
Debate Round No. 1
CoronerPerry

Pro

CoronerPerry forfeited this round.
gusgusthegreat

Con

Definitions:
Reliable - Able to provide constant results.
Accurate - Coinciding with reality.

I could right now login to Wikipedia and change anything. Those with intentions to provide accurate info could easily be mistaken because they do not have any prior knowledge of the topic. The information could also very well be accurate were the person an expert in the field. But there is no way of knowing what information is accurate and what info is not.

This definition infers that anything can be relied upon, no matter the accuracy of the information. We could rely upon someone to provide us with cock and bull answers. Are they reliable? Yes. Is the information necessarily accurate? No. Wikipedia is not capable of providing a constant result. While we can accept that change will occur as time progresses, it cannot provide a constant stream of correct or incorrect answers. Since it is a mix of both, it cannot be a reliable source.
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by gusgusthegreat 8 years ago
gusgusthegreat
There are plenty of other online encyclopedias online that aren't constantly changed by random people. MSN Encarta, for example. Easy access doesn't warrant reliability.
Posted by CoronerPerry 8 years ago
CoronerPerry
Wikipedia is the website that comes closest to perfect. it is the only thing we common folk have for easy access, so therefore, it truly is reliable.
Posted by gusgusthegreat 8 years ago
gusgusthegreat
None-but you can always rest assured that the things that are incorrect will stay that way and the correct things will stay the same. Wikipedia changes all the time.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
gusgusthegreat,
what encyclopedia does provide constantly correct information?
Posted by gusgusthegreat 8 years ago
gusgusthegreat
Dictionary.com said--

that may be relied on; dependable in achievement, accuracy, honesty, etc.

By the way, CoronerPerry is affirmative. I was neg. And no, Wikipedia isn't reliable. It doesn't provide constant correct or incorrect information. See my posts.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Mmmm "Correct or close to correct". I'd say so - seems to imply that perfection isn't necessary.
You don't believe that Wikipedia does that?
Posted by CoronerPerry 8 years ago
CoronerPerry
Reliable, meaning you can rely on the site giving you information that is either correct, or close to correct.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
I hope somebody defines what "reliable" means.
This is a pointless debate if reliable = always correct. No encyclopedia can always be correct.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by new-world-order 8 years ago
new-world-order
CoronerPerrygusgusthegreatTied
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 Littleweasle 8 years ago
Littleweasle
CoronerPerrygusgusthegreatTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by chevy10294 8 years ago
chevy10294
CoronerPerrygusgusthegreatTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Chunshwi 8 years ago
Chunshwi
CoronerPerrygusgusthegreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Jdog 8 years ago
Jdog
CoronerPerrygusgusthegreatTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
CoronerPerrygusgusthegreatTied
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