The Instigator
Nadddz
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Debatequeen1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Wikipedia is an acceptable source

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 474 times Debate No: 41844
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Nadddz

Pro

Wikipedia is an acceptable source.
Definition of terms:
Wikipedia- a website used by internet users. and is found at http://www.wikipedia.org...
Acceptable- not necessarily reliable but the information wikipedia would present shall be taken into consideration.
Source- origin or information or reference.

Wikipedia is an acceptable source because:
1. The information found here is very much complete.
2. The webite provides references to which you can verify whether or not the information presented is correct or incorrect.
3. A lot of users base their information from the website.

Thank you.
Debatequeen1

Con

Yes, if you want to find out something quick like someone's birthday, then Wikipedia is acceptable to use. If you are doing a school project and need to find out something about someone or something then you should not use Wikipedia as your source. Did you know that anyone who has a Wikipedia account can edit the information? You could get a bad grade on your school assignment because the information you used wasn't right. Wikipedia isn't a very reliable source to use and it isn't always acceptable to use either.
Debate Round No. 1
Nadddz

Pro

Yes, I do understand where you're coming from. I, myself, am a student. I have been using Wikipedia not only for my assignments but also for my research papers, and I do end up having a good grade.

Wikipedia does allow people to edit its information, but does that automatically make its content unreliable or unaccepted?

I don't see the problem in that.
1. It would actually give wikipedia the advantage of becoming an up-to-date source of information if discoveries are made. For example, the proclamation that pluto is no longer considered a planet. Some websites that don't have their copy rites until that year when the new fact was discovered, then their information would be considered false.
2. Due to the numerous number of people that use wikipedia in their everyday research, if a researcher sees that a false information is posted on the page, he/she could correct the information.
3. Did you also know that you could actually see the revision done? You can actually detect the word/ phrase/ sentence that was changed/added/removed. You would simply point your mouse on the "Show History"on the top right of the page.

Thank you.
Debatequeen1

Con

Debatequeen1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Nadddz

Pro

Nadddz forfeited this round.
Debatequeen1

Con

Debatequeen1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bsoten 3 years ago
bsoten
The reference links from Wikipedia may lead you to a scholarly source. Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source. Just like Google isn't a reliable source, but the links that take you to a .gov, .edu, or .org may prove reliable, depending on the subject matter.
No votes have been placed for this debate.