The Instigator
TheVanadium
Pro (for)
The Contender
Pandanelephant2001
Con (against)

Wikipedia is a trustworthy source

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Pandanelephant2001 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2017 Category: Technology
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 269 times Debate No: 105755
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

TheVanadium

Pro

Some believe that Wikipedia is an untrustworthy source. However, they have all failed to convince me that they are correct. I look for a debater who is able to convince me that Wikipedia is untrustworthy.

The rounds shall be organized in this format:

1) Claim and Acceptance
2) Explanations and Evidence
3) Counter-Arguments
4) Countering Counter-Arguments and Summarization of Points.
Pandanelephant2001

Con

I stand in strong negation to the following resolution that Wikipedia is a trustworthy source. I accept the challenge!
Debate Round No. 1
TheVanadium

Pro

This is the round of explanations and evidence.

Point 1 - Wikipedia is fact-checked by its team of hundreds of experts and is notified when a change is made to one of its articles. That way, the experts check the change that as made, checks if it's correct, and deletes it if it is not.

Point 2 - Sources are listed for each fact on Wikipedia.This way, if a user wants to fact-check it themselves, they can visit the source.


I await the Contender's response.
Pandanelephant2001

Con

I stand in strong negation to the following resolution that Wikipedia is a reliable source. Actually, ANYONE can edit a Wikipedia page!
http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
TheVanadium

Pro

As I have said before, once someone edits a Wikipedia page, an expert is notified and checks if the seems correct and a source is listed. If it is clearly unrealistic or a source is not listed, it undoes the change or notifies users that a source was not listed, so they know to be wary of the information. Simply because anyone can edit it does not mean that fools are able to replace information with their own false information. The change the fool would make is undone.

The link you have posted has been fixed by the Wikipedia experts. It is an outdated fact and its use as evidence is, from this point forwards, nullified.

You have failed to provide your own arguments in proper form as I have. The counter-arguments are reserved for Round 3 onwards.
Pandanelephant2001

Con

I still stand in strong negation to the following resolution that Wikipedia is a reliable source. My opponent said that I have failed to provide my own arguments. This is strictly false. My first argument was posted in Round 2.
Counter-Arguments: Opponent's Point 2: "Sources are listed for each fact on Wikipedia." This is false, and my opponent even admitted it themselves, in their round 3 argument when they stated: " ...a source is not listed...notifies users that a source was not listed..."

Debate Round No. 3
TheVanadium

Pro

First off, I would like to discuss the legal problems of the counter-argument of my opponent. When she quoted my argument, she did not include the full sentence. When she cut off that fraction of a sentence, she changed the meaning of it entirely. That is libel, so the evidence is henceforth nullified. When I said, "...a source is not listed..." I meant that there is a notification in the extremely unlikely event that a source hasn't been listed.


I admit that there are not sources for ALL the facts on Wikipedia, but some of the facts are common knowledge. When an important fact is left out, Wikipedia warns the reader not to trust it. I mistyped when I made that point. What I meant was that the facts that don't have sources can be simply ruled out as untrustworthy. I forgot to add that to the explanation. Therefore, I still have control of this point.

The Contender has not retaliated to the fact that Wikipedia is fact-checked by experts,
so it can be presumed that she has given up this case and it is a proven fact for me.

Readers, it is clear that the contender has not properly maintained the conduct of this argument, and has trespassed over legal rights. She has failed to destroy my points that Wikipedia is fact-checked by experts and that sources are listed for their work. I have destroyed the fact anyone can edit a page on Wikipedia by reminding her that my point that she ignored negates hers. I urge you to vote for my side of the argument that Wikipedia is a trustworthy source.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Pandanelephant2001 1 month ago
Pandanelephant2001
Just shut the f**** up!!!!!!
Posted by Swiz 1 month ago
Swiz
@Pandanelephant2001

Idc
Posted by Pandanelephant2001 1 month ago
Pandanelephant2001
In fact, I had my little sister check on my profile today since she's home sick today.
Posted by Pandanelephant2001 1 month ago
Pandanelephant2001
In fact, this is the first two seconds I've had to do anything since I woke up at 3 am!
Posted by Pandanelephant2001 1 month ago
Pandanelephant2001
No, I'm not. I have been taking stupid college finals all day! And you're the cheater and plagiarizer!!
Posted by Swiz 1 month ago
Swiz
She's gonna forfeight
Posted by Pandanelephant2001 1 month ago
Pandanelephant2001
Thank you TheVanadium!!!!
Posted by TheVanadium 1 month ago
TheVanadium
I shall note that this is Pandanelephant2001's first debate in the area of technology. I welcome him or her into this field.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.