The Instigator
Daltonian
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
xOs
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Wikipedia should be considered a viable source on DDO

Do you like this debate?NoYes+11
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 4 votes the winner is...
Daltonian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,479 times Debate No: 59256
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (70)
Votes (4)

 

Daltonian

Pro

I am re-launching this debate for all who are interested in accepting.

This debate is currently impossible to accept. If you are interested, clarify so by either giving me a PM or saying so in the comments. This filter only exists to prohibit trolls from accepting. If someone somehow accepts this debate without my approval, it will result in a full forfeit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate Information:
* My opponent can either
A) choose to put forth an argument in round one, and forfeit his last round (only the words "no round as agreed" may be typed, anything else results in a full forfeit)
B) use round one for acceptance

* Burden of Proof will be shared. Con must prove why Wikipedia should not be considered a viable source on DDO (in other words, why it is illegitimate or unsuitable) and I, contrarily, must prove why it is viable.

* Do not present new arguments in a round in which the opponent is unable to counter or rebut.

Terms:
* Viable - Capable of successful use, in this debate you can interpret it as meaning "satisfactory" or "sufficient".
* Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia(©), owned by the Wikimedia foundation


Rules:
* No trolling
* Wikipedia refers to all active encyclopedic pages, not talk or discussion pages that are not live on the encyclopedia.
* No harassment
* Forfeiture results in an automatic concession of conduct points for either side

Thanks and good luck!
xOs

Con

I accept your challenge, I will be debating the flaws in wikipedia, and why debate.org should not consider it a viable source.
Debate Round No. 1
Daltonian

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting. I anticipate a fair and honest debate with him! :)

Note to judges and to my opponent: since this is a debate about the legitimacy of sources, I don't think that they will or should play an overly large role in the spectrum and judging of the debate, unless either of us are asserting things that undeniably need to be proven (example: wikipedia systematically endorses "x", wikipedia is proven to be perfectly valid by "x" study).

If my opponent does not contest this, we could both agree to discount using or judging sources, unless it is apparently necessary to do so. If he would like to retain the judgement of sources, then that's also fine.

I will cite wikipedia in this debate, but not as a citation for proving a fact. Any links to wikipedia made will only be present to cite wikipedia policies about itself.

Clarifications of fact
Z. Wikipedia is a secondhand source.
Z1 - Secondhand sources are not inherently inviable.

Y. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia

X. The fact that wikipedia can be edited by anyone speaks nothing to it's legitimacy as a secondhand source
X1 - Since wikipedia is a second source based off of primary resources, as long as information is properly cited, critiquing who is doing the citing is a red herring.



Arguments

A1.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

A2. Textbooks, nonfictional writing, and encyclopedias are in most cases viable sources.

A3. Textbooks, nonfictional writing, and encyclopedias are intended relayers of information already proven valid by factual studies or direct evidence. They are secondhand sources.

A4. Wikipedia is a relayer of information already proven valid by factual studies or direct evidence, and is a secondhand source.

A5. In order for content to retain it's status on wikipedia, it must be cited by a widely considered reliable or notable source. [1]

A6. Content that is not cited by a widely considered reliable or notable source is either considered vandalism or unsuitable, and is removed or tagged as such for readers. [2] [3] [1]

A7. Because wikipedia does not consider vandalism or unsourced content valid, it is essentially the equivalent of someone taking a pen and adding their own entry into an encyclopedia or textbook.

A8. Therefore, wikipedia is as equally reliable as any other encyclopedia, textbook, or resource of the sort.


A9. Because wikipedia is valid in this fashion, it should be considered viable.


B1. Wikipedia has the capacity to reassure the validity of an assertion

B2. The point of any source utilized in a debate is to reassure the validity of an assertion a contender makes during the debate.

B3. To prove that wikipedia is inviable, my opponent would be responsible for proving wikipedia's incapacity to perform B2.

B4. Wikipedia consists of all content in it's active namespace that adhere to the policies set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation [4]

B5. Wikipedia policy dictates that Wikipedia can only exist as a secondhand source and not as a platform for original research or as a soapbox [4]

B6. Because wikipedia only cites information and is not original in any way whatsoever, it is thus capable of reassuring the validity of an assertion unless proven not so by con.


C1. Wikipedia is more reliable than news organizations

C2. Citing news organizations - such as BBC, CNN, NBC, FOX, CBS, etc - is widely considered normal and/or viable on DDO

C3. Citing wikipedia is considered by many on DDO to not be normal and/or viable on DDO


C4. Most news organizations do not directly cite sources of information, facts, or statistics presented in their articles

C5. Wikipedia does directly cite sources of information, facts, or statistics presented in it's articles.

C6. The citing of any studies, organizations, and evidence pertaining to the content presented by a secondhand source is a major factor concerning reliability

C7. Since wikipedia does this and other sources considered viable on DDO do not, it should be considered viable


Wikipedia Policies (references)
[1] - (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
[2] - (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
[3] - (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
[4] - (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

xOs

Con

Thank you for this interesting topic, I think it will be fun to debate!

Definitions-

Viable- "Capable of being done or used, capable of succeeding."[1]

Now, to business.


a- Wikipedia's Editing Policy


a1- Wikipedia's streamlined editing policy is- "Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help. Even the best articles should not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance the content in it anytime."[2]


a2- "Even the best articles should not be considered complete" is one of the main points in this article written by Wikipedia. It clearly states that Wikipedia has faults in even the best articles, which can lead to false information going into debates.


a3- False information in debates can be a huge problem, because it can lead to a wrong vote for the wrong reasons.



b- Errors in Wikipedia

b1- Wikipedia cannot be considered a source that is "able to be used sucessfully", because of the many errors in articles, which can be considered an "improper use of cited sources" which, as it clearly states in the DDO FAQ[3], is frowned upon.


b2- False information has happened before! In Ireland, a kid named Shane Fitzgerald posted a fake quotation on Wikipedia on the page of recently deceased French composer Maurice Jarre. Other Wikipedia users tried to remove it, but he kept posting it until it was allowed to stay.[4]


b3- Some administrators sometimes have an agenda. For example, when British scientist William Connolley recieved the status of administrator on Wikipedia, he re-edited over 5,000 articles that opposed his theories that global warming was receeding.[5]


b4- People will sometimes falsify pages. An example of this is when John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was unknowingly added to the assassination of the Kennedy brothers on his Wikipedia biography for a period of more than 100 days without his knowledge.[6]


b5- There is not much difference between writers. "According to a 2009 survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, 87 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, with an average age of 26.8 years."[7]


b6- Sometimes, accurate information can be deleted. A recent survey was taken, showing that Wikipedia's editor count has dropped by a staggering 200,000, and is currently being controlled by a group labeled "The deletionists". These people live under the motto "Edit first, ask questions later." And will overwrite any information that collides with their own. This makes it harder for Wikipedia, who says they strive to give “the sum of all human knowledge”, to overlook the fact that they are controlled by a select group of people.[8]


b7- Wikipedia says it itself. Wikipedia has said "We do not expect you to trust us." And it goes on to talk about how it "isn't a primary source" and how you "shouldn't use it to make critical decisions". It's telling us itself that it makes errors![9]


b8- Teachers have started to steer their students away from Wikipedia. Due to the errors that can be found on Wikipedia's database, teachers have been steering away from Wikipedia, and towards things like Culture-Grams, Discovery Online, and other sources that have actually been written by professionals. Why should this debate site, that is supposed to be controlled by people with the facts, be any different?


Sources-

1- http://www.merriam-webster.com...

2- http://en.wikipedia.org...

3- http://www.debate.org...

4- http://www.nbcnews.com...

5- http://wattsupwiththat.com...

6- http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

7- http://www.webpronews.com...

8- http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

9- http://en.wikipedia.org...






Debate Round No. 2
Daltonian

Pro

Thanks for the intriguing arguments! I will now take a shot at refuting them.

I'll add another definition:
Inviable -"Not Capable of being done or used, capable of succeeding."

1. Lack of rebuttals to my contentions
My opponent has dropped all of my contentions.

Since my opponent did not rebut any of my three points, I expect and hope he will refute them in the upcoming round. If not, I would like to clarify both to him and to all voters that he still needs to refute points A-C of my original argument.

2. Rebuttals
A. Editing Policy
A1, A2 & A3 - In these points, my opponent has failed to justify why something that is incomplete is not inherently incapable of successful use. For example, most dictionaries are widely considered forever incomplete, as new words are added to the english language every year. The basic study of the universe, science, is infinite and thus incomplete as well.

Since Wikipedia's goal is to compile all knowledge in one place, it is never complete. However, suggesting that the knowledge compiled at "x" point is time because more knowledge will be compiled at "y" point in time is fallacious.

Being incomplete is far from a fault. Human knowledge is never complete.

Since A3 relies on the "incompleteness" of wikipedia being a fault rendering it inviable for a source, it is moot.

B.Errors in Wikipedia
B1 - This is incorrect. Wikipedia is a source that is capable of being used successfully. Errors in particular articles or in certain instances do not illegitimize it as an organization successful of reference. This argument is a composition/division fallacy [1]

To prove that wikipedia is overall inviable, my opponent would have to prove that, overall, wikipedia is not capable of being used successfully. In more cases,

Example: If BBC makes an error in one of their reports, they are not incapable of being used viably. In most instances, this error does not exist, and thus they as an organization should be considered viable.

Example: There are seventeen typos in a dictionary. Does this illegitimize the viability of using the rest of the definitions successfully?


B2 - My opponent misrepresents the content of this article, which actually has a pro-wikipedia theme.

To quote the article,


They used the fabricated material, Fitzgerald said, even though administrators at the free online encyclopedia quickly caught the quote's lack of attribution and removed it, but not quickly enough to keep some journalists from cutting and pasting it first.

Also, at the time in which this error occurred, the article was clearly tagged as per wikipedia policy as being under construction and inviable for use.

Since this unfortunate death was imminent, even though the vandalism was removed within minutes, journalists still quoted it without bothering to consider the vandalism tags at the top of the article.


To quote the vandal himself,

His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.


B3 - This article is from 2010,when wikipedia was less developped, and focuses in on one unfortunate instance of biased editing with no widespread justification in showing that high ranking and active wikipedia editors (who do the majority of the editing on wikipedia) are significantly biased. The editor in question faced arbitration and received a revocation of adminship and a ban on all climate-related articles unanimously. [2]

Since the wikipedia community unanimously agreed Mr. Connolley's edits were not supposed to be there and were intrusive vandalism, it is akin to Mr. Connolley scribbling his opinions with a sharpie inside of a non-digital encyclopedia or dictionary and proclaiming the source unreliable as a result of so.



B4 - Again, the instance cited is from 2005, when wikipedia has no ongoing counter-vandalism mechanism or team to enforce the citation of points. This instance of incorrect information has no sway on wikipedia's current status, which is drastically more improved.

The vast majority of misleading/vandalistic information on wikipedia is now automatically removed by bots. [3]

B5 - Does my opponent suggests that an encylclopedia written by majorly males is inherently inviable?


B6 - I do not understand what this has to do with the resolution. I do not know if my opponent is misunderstanding what "deletionist" means or if he is falsely interpreting a source.

Deletionists and inclusionists are terms used to refer to the stance of wikipedians on the issue of whether content should ever be deleted if it is verifiable. They are not a "select group of people", and they have no "motto".

This point has nothing to do with the debate, but to clarify to all readers from the point of view of someone engrossed in the wikipedia community:

- Deletionists believe only reliable, notable, and inherently useful content should be harboured on wikipedia. If a subject is not notable (example: "The flowers in my back yard"), they would say it does not warrant the creation of an article. Thus, they are pro-deletion of content that does not meet certain criteriae regarding being able to be sources, proved notable, and proved useful.
- Inclusionists believe all content should be kept on wikipedia as long as it can be proven because it is technically knowledge.

Either way, these two factions of wikipedia editors have nothing to do with wikipedia's reliability, as both only support reliable content being added to the wiki.



B7 - This link is not a wikipedia policy. It is an opinion essay written by a wikipedia contributor. It is tagged as such at the top of the page. Wikipedia has admitted nothing.



B8 - My opponent suggests that, since teachers steer their students from wikipedia, it must not be viable. This is a slippery slope.
He also uses a red herring. It doesn't matter who has written a second-hand article, as long as they display a competent ability to cite the first-hand studies and sources of others, they are equally credible.


---------------------------------------------------

For my opponent to prove his side of the BOP (Wikipedia is inviable and thus should not be considered viable), he would have to prove that wikipedia is so falsified that is incapable of successfully reasserting or verfiying a person's claim in most instances. He has failed to do so.
He has named a few particular errors of thousands upon thousands of edits, which says nothing to wikipedia's validity.

My opponent has failed in his duty of refuting my points, and in his duty of proving that wikipedia is incapable of verifying an assertion and thus inviable.

[1] - (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...)
[2] - (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
[3] - (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
xOs

Con

A Quick Note On Rebuttals-
I thought it would be in bad taste to refute the arguements in the first round, but I will now proceed to.

Rebuttals-

First Round-

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"
An encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone and everyone. If it's facts are completely illegitamate, could it still be trusted?

Example- You buy a volume of encyclopedias, but you disagree with some of the articles, so you get a pen and rewrite them in your own fashion. Then your friend does the same, then another, then another. After 100 friends have added their (sometimes biased) opinions to your book, and you have 100 different opinions on one fact, could you still call it a "viable source?" This also adresses A7.


"Wikipedia is as equally reliable as any other encyclopedia, textbook, or resource of the sort."
Wrong! Due to the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it is
much less reliable than the facts that you get from a cited, professionally written, triple checked book written by true professionals.


"
Most news organizations do not directly cite sources of information, facts, or statistics presented in their articles
."
The main reason that news networks do not directly cite the facts on their page is simply because they don't need to! They have professional writers that are paid to write these articles. They actually go to the scene of the crime to collect the facts. Their primary source is themselves. And before anything is posted, they have people check it over multiple times, something that people simply don't do on Wikipedia.

"Wikipedia cites it's sources"
Now, you didn't actually say this, but because about half your debate was about it I will imply it as fact. But just because the source is cited dosen't mean that the information is 100% creditable. In fact, I'll prove it to you! Below I have posted a link to a source that say cherries are grown on a banana bush.

http://realworldfacts.weebly.com...

Of course, all this information is false, both bananas and cherries are grown on trees. But by Daltonian's arguement, since I have cited my work, it is legitamite. Put it on Wikipedia!


Second Round-


Editing Policy-

"Since Wikipedia's goal is to compile all knowledge in one place, it is never complete."
False. A poll taken in 2012 could be considered complete. The life of George Washington could be considered complete. Yet these Wikipedia articles could still be completely incapable of delivering the actual facts. Why? Human error. But more significantly, human error, magnified by the number of people editing.

Example- You have 100 people editing an article on the Vietnam War. Each person can't be expected to make everything exactly right, so they each make one error. That's 100 errors. 100 errors lying in wait, 100 errors that could mean the difference between a good grade and a bad one. 100 errors is a lot, and there are more than 100 editors on Wikipedia.


"Does my opponent suggests that an encylclopedia written by majorly males is inherently inviable?"

Let's say you take ten men that all have the same ideals, and put them in a room together to complete a project. They come out with a list of facts, that gives nothing but some bullets on a page. Now, lets say that you take a diverse group of people, and let them work it out on a page. Chances are the they will come up with a much more interesting paper then the people that were all the same.

Deletionists and inclusionists are terms used to refer to the stance of wikipedians on the issue of whether content should ever be deleted if it is verifiable. They are not a "select group of people", and they have no "motto".

I apologize if you misunderstood, I meant that due to the actions of these people, this motto could be included in their overall profile. But deletionists do more then simply looking for the correct information. They look for the information that they think should be there. Otherwise, they delete it. And the Wiki foundation does not actually enjoy it when people delete.


"He also uses a red herring. It doesn't matter who has written a second-hand article, as long as they display a competent ability to cite the first-hand studies and sources of others, they are equally credible."

You are incorrect. If given the choice between a first time writer who barely knows how to copy-paste, and a seasoned writer who always cites the best sources, I would go with the ladder, wouldn't you? But as I know your refutal to this will be "But it works, so it's viable." So I will take the liberty of countering that too. Small errors can sometimes lead into bigger problems.

Example- The editor in question replaces the quote "Donuts are healthy" with "Donuts can be healthy". This leads to people putting the incorrect quote into their reports, articles, and other important documents. This demonstrates what Chineese whispers can do to a Wikipedia page.


Now- to add points of my own.


Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification.[1]

This goes to show that everyone and anyone can just pop on to Wikipedia, and edit a few pages.

Wikipedia also doesn't require you to have an account to be able to edit.

These things can cause mass vandalism, making the site an inviable source of information.


When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, an arguement may present itself.

As everyone knows, all people can't have everything, all the time. And the point still stands on Wikipedia. People get into arguements, and since both of them can't be right, one of them is giving out false information.

Also, since you can't be online all the time, people will try to change another editor's information without them noticing. This leads to a Wiki War, where niether will back down until, eventually, someone has to break them up, sometimes they will ban someone who was standing up for their work because they knew it was right. That effectively silences the person that was just trying to edit.

For my opponent to fufill his BOP, he must prove that I could go to any Wikipedia page and collect the correct information from that page. Unfourtanetly, there is proof upon proof that incorrect pages are everywhere on Wikipedia. Thus, Daltonian does not fuffill his BOP.

[1]- http://realworldfacts.weebly.com...;(this is a fake source that I made up to prove my point, and in no way should be taken seriously)

[2]- http://en.wikipedia.org...







Debate Round No. 3
Daltonian

Pro

I will present my final rebuttals in this round.

May everyone reading please note that my opponent can present no new arguments in the final round, only final rebuttals and his conclusion.


--------------



First Round Counter-Rebuttals
My opponent has still dropped some of the key concepts of my points from R1.


FR1.
""Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"
An encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone and everyone. If it's facts are completely illegitamate, could it still be trusted?

Example- You buy a volume of encyclopedias, but you disagree with some of the articles, so you get a pen and rewrite them in your own fashion. Then your friend does the same, then another, then another. After 100 friends have added their (sometimes biased) opinions to your book, and you have 100 different opinions on one fact, could you still call it a "viable source?" This also addresses A7."

This point does not adequately refute my contention.The first part of his rebuttal consisted of alleging wikipedia is entirely illegitimate because it can be edited by anyone without proper sourcing of why that is.

If you rewrite the contents of an encyclopedia with a pen (which is what vandals on wikipedia are essentially doing), then the encyclopedia in it's unaltered form is a viable source.

Most vandalism on wikipedia is reverted automatically or within minutes.

FR2. "Wikipedia is as equally reliable as any other encyclopedia, textbook, or resource of the sort."
Wrong! Due to the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it is..."

There is no professionalism required in being able to cite a source as a secondhand writer. If you are unable to do so, your edits will be quickly reverted and you will be blocked until you prove yourself able to do so as per WP policy. [1]


FR3.
"Most news organizations do not directly cite sources of information, facts, or statistics presented in their articles."
The main reason that news networks do not directly cite the facts on their page is simply because they don't need to! They have professional writers that are paid to write these articles. They actually go to the scene of the crime to collect the facts. Their primary source is themselves. And before anything is posted, they have people check it over multiple times, something that people simply don't do on Wikipedia."

This point falsely assumes that news organizations are, for the most part, primary sources of information. In some cases, news stories are original reports, but in most cases, they are doing what is in their namesake: spreading news. They do not "create" news, they retell it as a secondhand source.



FR4.
""Wikipedia cites it's sources"
Now, you didn't actually say this, but because about half your debate was about it I will imply it as fact. But just because the source is cited dosen't mean that the information is 100% creditable. In fact, I'll prove it to you! Below I have posted a link to a source that say cherries are grown on a banana bush.


http://realworldfacts.weebly.com......

Of course, all this information is false, both bananas and cherries are grown on trees. But by Daltonian's arguement, since I have cited my work, it is legitimate. Put it on Wikipedia!
This argument is misleading. Wikipedia policy dictates that only reliable or otherwise notable sources can be cited as a reference. "URL" is not a synonym of "reliable source". [3]"

If wikipedia is unreliable because unreliable URL's and websites are out there, then all encyclopedias are unreliable because there are unreliable books out there. This argument is fallacious.


Second Round Counter-Rebuttals

SR1
. Here, I point out that Wikipedia is never complete, as it's goal is to compile all knowledge, and human knowledge can always be expanded


My opponent responded by saying,
"False. A poll taken in 2012 could be considered complete. The life of George Washington could be considered complete."
A poll taken in 2012 is not akin to a place where all knowledge is compiled. There is no analogy between them.


SR1A - You have 100 people editing an article on the Vietnam War. Each person can't be expected to make everything exactly right, so they each make one error. That's 100 errors. 100 errors lying in wait, 100 errors that could mean the difference between a good grade and a bad one. 100 errors is a lot, and there are more than 100 editors on Wikipedia.

Whilst I understand the concept my opponent is trying to grasp, his argument is unfortunately fallacious. In order for his argument to have bearing, human error would have to be universally incorrectible or permanent.


If there are 100 people working on an article, and one makes a mistake, there are 99 other editors there to quickly notice it and fix the error.

Why assume 100 people will all automatically be capable of making an error, but not quickly fixing or noticing one? Especially if most active wikipedians are veterans of the site and highly skilled at picking up common errors?

100 competent individuals working together on an article will systematically tend to produce better results than one highly intelligent person working on one alone, because of the mere beauties of collaboration and outside perspective.

SR2 - Males v females ratio

This is a borderline sexist argument. There is no cognitive correlation between the presence of a penis as genitalia and any certain ideal, capacity to perform, or belief set.

In other words, intellectual and viable results can still be reached without a 50/50 mix of penises and vaginas in the room.

The only instance in which the presence of both sexes would matter would be on a topic directly related to men's or women's issues.

Approximately 12% of wikipedians are female, and 1-2% of all wikipedia articles directly correlate to women's issues. [2] This is a sufficient amount. Diversity is not directly tied to accurate writing or performance.

SR3 - Deletionism and inclusionism

I will further explain the topic of deletionism and inclusionism on wikipedia.

There is no "cult" of users controlling wikipedia and enforcing their beliefs on wikipedia.

Deletionists support deleting articles which do not meet wikipedia guidelines about notability, verifiability, and conduct.
Inclusionists support including all article so long as they are not inherently vulgar or untrue.

Either way, all content on wikipedia remains verifiable and accurate. The issue here concerns what is or is not included on the wiki. This issue is irrelevant to the resolution, as we are not debating whether certain content should or should not be added to wikipedia, but whether the content on wikipedia is viable for use in the form of proving an assertion.

Even if there was a systematic bias in excluding certain topics (there isn't), it would have no direct effect on the viability of the content that is included, as it is no less reliable as a result of so.

SR4 - Red herring regarding ability to cite a source

Competence is required on wikipedia [1]. Therefore, a first time writer would be barred from editing wikipedia after his incompetence is displayed. He would be encouraged to take many of Wikimedia's tutorials on how to edit and write, and then have his rights reinstated [1].

This argument also assumes that a significant amount of wikipedia editors do not know how to copy-paste, and that a significant majority would not be present to automatically correct the mistakes made.

New Point Rebuttals
A.
Identification
It is indeed true that wikipedia editors preserve their right to edit anonymously. However, in order for my opponent to make this fact favourable to his side of the resolution, he would need to prove there is a definitive link between anonymity and incapability to properly cite a source or function as a competent secondhand writer. He has failed to do so.
B. Arguments
Wikipedia carries a policy known as the 3RR rule, which forbids more than 3 reversions of an edit during a conflict. If this rule is broken, both editors are suspended from editing the article until the community reaches a consensus. [4]
C. Last Minute change of BOP

I highly contest my opponent's point here. He suggests that, if a source has an insignificant or very small minority of incorrect information (in wikipedia's case, almost all incorrect information is removed by a passing editor or a BOT), then it is entirely inviable for sourcing.

In this case, all of the following organizations cannot be used as a source:
BBC
Harvard
Scientific American
etc

Why?
Because at some point during all of their continued existences, they have promoted an incorrect page. None the less, in most of these cases, the error was quickly corrected, and so they are still considered viable and reliable.

If BBC, Harvard, or SA makes an error and corrects it in a reasonable amount of time, they are still viable.
If Wikipedia makes an error and corrects it in a reasonable amount of time, they are not viable because wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

By claiming that I have this BOP, my opponent is practically stating the above.

In conclusion
- My opponent has failed to prove that wikipedia cannot be successfully used to verify an assertion, only made comments about anonymity and lack of professionalism being tied to inviability without proper explanation.

- Thus, wikipedia is not inviable.
- Because wikipedia is not inviable, it should be considered viable on DDO.


[1] - (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
[2] - (http://www.theatlantic.com...)
[3] - (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
[4] - (http://en.wikipedia.org...)




VOTE PRO!
xOs

Con

I would like to make the statement that continuing the argument in the comment section is not proper conduct. Just a precaution.



Facts That May Have Been Missed-


BOP- Burden of Proof. Rests on the person that has to change what is already fact.

I.E.- If a book was banned in a library, and there was an argument that the book should be allowed, BOP rests on the person who is trying to prove that the book should be allowed back into the library. Now, I'm not saying that this is the way things are happening in this debate, just wanted to point that out.

Viable- Able to be used successfully.

Now, to rebuttals-



"If you rewrite the contents of an encyclopedia with a pen (which is what vandals on wikipedia are essentially doing), then the encyclopedia in it's unaltered form is a viable source."

I strongly disagree with this counter argument. This basically states that everyone will write exactly what they are told to write exactly as it should be.

Unfortunately, human nature happens to get in the way. Now, human nature is correctable, but you are trying to state that wikipedia is next to perfect, with everyone solving each others problems. This is not the case, so this argument is irrelevant.


"Most vandalism on wikipedia is reverted automatically or within minutes."

Incorrect. In fact, a poll was taken showing that only 42% of vandalism is corrected within minutes.

In fact, quoting the IBM poll- "A 2007 peer-reviewed study stated that "42% of damage is repaired almost immediately... Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views." [1].

Now, 2007 may seem like a long time ago, but what my opponent says about Wikipedia being "less developed" are only half true. Wikipedia may have increased the number of error corrections, but the number of incorrect posts is still massive.


"There is no professionalism required in being able to cite a source as a secondhand writer."

No, but there is some skill required in writing, good, honest, viable pages. For example, you take two versions of the same page.

1- Waffles are[] good for breakfast. People[] say they are tasty.

2- Waffles[] are a breakfast delight enjoyed by many! A poll[] was recently taken showing that 70% of people enjoy waffles.

If you really think about it, could you even consider the first one viable? It simply states the obvious. Just because it has creditable sources doesn't mean that the page is creditable itself!

"This point falsely assumes that news organizations are, for the most part, primary sources of information."

No, I clearly stated that news stations are more reliable than Wikipedia, to counter your round one argument- "Wikipedia is more reliable than news organizations." Which, given the facts, is false.

"If wikipedia is unreliable because unreliable URLs and websites are out there, then all encyclopedias are unreliable because there are unreliable books out there."

I completely disagree. If a false url is posted on Wikipedia, it is considered a source of information. If you take two completely different books, and then put them on the same shelf, that doesn't make one of them false if the other contains bad information, does it?


My opponent responded by saying,
"False. A poll taken in 2012 could be considered complete. The life of George Washington could be considered complete."
A poll taken in 2012 is not akin to a place where all knowledge is compiled. There is no analogy between them.

You misunderstood once again. I stated that there are certain things that have been completed, and that simple human error is what is keeping them from being complete, not the actual subject still producing information to be catalogued.


If there are 100 people working on an article, and one makes a mistake, there are 99 other editors there to quickly notice it and fix the error.

I understand this argument, but I disagree with the concept. Rest assured that more than one error will be posted, and that people simply will not catch all of them, which brings me back to pro's point on the "perfection" of Wikipedia.


Males v females ratio
This is a borderline sexist argument

Unlike you just blatantly stated, the argument was actually about the lack of diversity between editors, not the gender ratio. The statement that you just made could be considered more sexist than my actual argument.


There is no "cult" of users controlling wikipedia and enforcing their beliefs on wikipedia.

Once again, I never said there was. I stated that deletionists are certainly not helping Wikipedia, not that they were a cult.

I stated that the general profile of the deletionist has been taking Wikipedia over, not that a cult has been.

If BBC, Harvard, or SA makes an error and corrects it in a reasonable amount of time, they are still viable.
If Wikipedia makes an error and corrects it in a reasonable amount of time, they are not viable because wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

Honestly I think this should be corrected to-

If BBC, Harvard, or SA makes an error and corrects it in a reasonable amount of time, it is corrected, the page is searched, and the other errors are removed, and the page will never be edited again.
If Wikipedia makes an error and corrects it in a reasonable amount of time, they are not viable because wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and soon enough, some vandal, first-timer, fake-sourcer, or troll will come along and mess it up again.


Closing Remarks-

I have rebutted all of Pro's major arguements, but he has failed to sucessfully counter mine.

Thus pro has failed to prove his BOP, and loses this debate.


(I even rebutted the picture)


Debate Round No. 4
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
what censor says it is not? like the write truthier things? ha!
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
ooooohhh goodie i'm totally voting
Posted by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
I like R3 specifically when Pro attacks how case studies are irrelevant and unrepresentative. Good debate.

except the sex argument, that was irrelevant. LOL
Posted by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
You are doing pretty well for your 4th debate, I must say. Good luck in the voting period!
Posted by xOs 2 years ago
xOs
You too! Sorry that this was a bit of a shabby debate. This will be my 4th. But this seems like a very interesting site.
Posted by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
Good debate! :)
Posted by xOs 2 years ago
xOs
My Sources For Final Round-

[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...

That awesome photo- www.picmonkey.com
Posted by xOs 2 years ago
xOs
I will accept your challenge, if you let me.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
I think you should use the term Accurate rather than Viable.
I read that Search Engines apparently operate based on popularity, rather than on accuracy.
In other words they couldn't care less whether the "information" (like so-called "news" reports ) is accurate or not, just how many people click on the websites they offer, which, of course, doesn't make sense.
The information on Wiki, on the other hand, is apparently controlled by the people running Wiki.
(Since they're the ones who control what's in Wiki, the idea that anybody can edit Wiki information is nonsense. )
The accuracy of Wiki information, therefore, would depend on the Intelligence, or even more important, the Sanity, of the people running Wiki.
As far as I can tell, the people running Wiki are, basically speaking, Intelligent & Sane.
(I'm a Pro.)
Posted by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
I am interested in this debate, btw.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
DaltonianxOsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro voiced the simple fact that comparing Wikipedia to a bad source of information is like comparing any encyclopedia to a bad source of information, and backed their arguments up in a superior fashion. There is also more substance, if you will, to each of Daltonian's arguments. Their spelling and grammar was also superior, and the format of their arguments less hard on the eyes.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
DaltonianxOsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I was sorely tempted to give sources to Pro because Con cited wikipedia on more than one occasion, but Pro successfuly showed that if we consider wikipedia an invalid source we ought also to discard news organizations and even professional encyclopedias due to their similar (or even greater) rate of error; so I'll allow it.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
DaltonianxOsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: S & G was for the following: "arguEment" "legitAmite" "UnfoUrtAnEt?ly". The text was quite big enough to make me stray away from the arguments and just look at the mistakes. S & G - Pro. On arguments however, Pro centers his argument by using the representativeness of wikipedia while Con uses a case-study approach to negate the resolution. The case studies are to prove that neither of Pro's generalisation is true. Pro effectively refute this based on reliability accounts only and loses out on 2 other premises namely the deletionists and the news outlet contention. Pro did not effectively provide reasons, as Pro resorted to referring deletionists as a 'cult' which in other case, does not negate Con's point that they have the 'power' to delete articles at will. The news outlet contention was leaning to Con(by an inch) when Con mentioned the only difference between them and that's when he mentioned 'anyone' as compared with 'Correspondents'. 2-1 = Arguments Con. Good debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
DaltonianxOsTied
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: PRO makes a good case that most Wikipedia pages can be trusted, are very unlikely to fail/be incorrect, and that almost any edited page will revert back to the way it was.