The Instigator
Daisy1234
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Phoenix61397
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

Wikipedia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Phoenix61397
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,189 times Debate No: 58213
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

Daisy1234

Con

Wikipedia is bad because people can write false information on it.
Phoenix61397

Pro

I'll accept this.
Wikipedia is not "bad" because people can write false information on it. Sure, people CAN write false information. The website allows for that, as it considers itself an "encyclopedia of the people" if you will. People can change it and edit it with their knowledge of a subject, as they can with any "wiki" site. Some of this information could be false. However, before condemning Wikipedia as "bad" because it CAN contain false information, one must look at its purpose.

Wikipedia is a site intended as a compendium of human knowledge. They recognize that it is not, at this time, a perfectly reliable academic resource [1]. So no, don't go writing a paper for high school or college and cite Wikipedia as a source. However, you cannot dismiss all of the site's merit simply because you cannot use DIRECTLY it to write a paper. Wikipedia can lead you to obscure details or sources concerning a subject you are researching that could not be found anywhere else, such as the founders of a park [1]. Wikipedia is meant to be the starting point for your academic research. It also has articles that are considered "good" or "featured" and have a higher possibility to be reliable.

Another benefit to Wikipedia is its contribution to the general knowledge of the Internet-surfing populace. You cannot tell me you've never wondered about a particular subject and looked it up on Wikipedia, read about it, and felt enlightened. This is, in my opinion, the best thing about Wikipedia, the ability to access a shared compendium of knowledge with the touch of a keyboard. Sure, you have to be wary of falsified details (check the sources), but Wikipedia is a great and easy tool to assist in the pursuit of knowledge.

The last point that makes Wikipedia not "bad" is a rather fun one: Wikipedia golf. Even if you argue that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for knowledge, you can still have fun with it. Pick a par number, a certain page you want to get to (I.e. Barack Obama) and click random page. You try to click the fewest hyperlinks on the page that you can to reach Obama's page. This engaging and fun game can teach critical thinking and help you pick up some basic knowledge on the way, all thanks to Wikipedia [2].

Therefore, Wikipedia has multiple benefits, and although it may not be a credible source for a research paper, it is not "bad".

[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.urbandictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Daisy1234

Con

Wikipedia is bad because all the stuff on it is false
Phoenix61397

Pro

Well, alright, thanks for that rebuttal.

This is a fairly easy statement to rebut. My opponent claims "all the stuff" on Wikipedia is false. Therefore, I just have to find one thing on Wikipedia that is true to rebut this. Since I went with Obama as an example before, I'll do so again.

Here's a sentence from WIkipedia:
Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States, and the first African American to hold the office.

Ok, now here are some other sources that say the same thing:
Barack Obama has been elected the 44th president of the United States--the first time an African-American has won the nation's highest office
http://www.usnews.com...

On this day in 2008, Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat, decisively defeated his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, to become the nation's 44th president and the first African-American to be elected to the White House.
http://www.politico.com...#

Barack Obama, in full Barack Hussein Obama II"(born August 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.), 44th president of the United States (2009-) and the first African American to hold the office.
http://www.britannica.com...

As you can see, either every site on the Internet is wrong, or Wikipedia has correct facts, which would invalidate your argument. As I said before, a couple of usually quickly fixed errors on a site does not make it bad. Wikipedia is in fact good in the hands of the right user. Back to you.
Debate Round No. 2
Daisy1234

Con

Wikipedia is for stupid people
Phoenix61397

Pro

Once again, thanks for the rebuttal.

The opposition completely abandons their last point and my rebuttal in favor of a completely ungrounded argument. Wikipedia is not for "stupid people". Stupid people are, in fact, the ones who use Wikipedia as pure fact and cite it in research papers. If you can stray from this practice, a plethora of information awaits you. Again, like the last argument, I will rebut your argument by citing an example of a smart person who uses Wikipedia: Mr. Evgeny Morozov, a writer and researcher about the field of technology. Here is a quote from Mr. Morozov:

"For all its shortcomings, Wikipedia does have strong governance and deliberative mechanisms; anyone who has ever followed discussions on Wikipedia's mailing lists will confirm that its moderators and administrators openly discuss controversial issues on a regular basis."
http://www.brainyquote.com...

Therefore, although Wikipedia has shortcomings, if used in an effective manner, it can be a valuable resource or provide for a fun game. It is not "bad". Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by IndianaFrank 2 years ago
IndianaFrank
That site is not permitted by the school system because it very often has the wrong answers.
Posted by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
I wasn't sure if I could, but I think my rebuttal almost matched their round 2 argument.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
I don't know how you are going to rebuttal after that round 2 logic....
Posted by marquis1212 2 years ago
marquis1212
Wikipedia is not BAD because it is possible for disruptive users to alter the articles with false information, it is a valid tool in many contexts. Agree with Con It should not be considered the only source of information, but it can be considered a place to go to find more information on a topic. A student or author probably shouldn't cite wikipedia as a source, but it is a valid activity to use wikipedia articles to get an overview of a subject, and it is great for locating additional sources (at the bottom of every article).

The reason wikipedia is mostly accurate is due to the hard work of the wikipedia community, who often debate the phrasing of each sentence, and aggressively monitor changes to a set of articles. Thanks to the community, graffiti and other disruptions are usually quickly corrected. Years ago I was pulled up an article on the American Revolution, and it contained numerous immature additions to the content. I refreshed the page, and they were gone -- a problem quickly rectified by the wikipedia community. Wikipedia is pretty good at putting additional access controls around articles that are susceptible to graffiti, or represent a controversial issue or current event. Users have to understand how the wikipedia system works, be on their guard, and realize that anything you read can be inaccurate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
Daisy1234Phoenix61397Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made 3 assertions and gave 0 evidence.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Daisy1234Phoenix61397Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: nothing came from con
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
Daisy1234Phoenix61397Tied
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: Con made baseless assertion. Pro made a more proper case, as such wins this debate.
Vote Placed by inaudita 2 years ago
inaudita
Daisy1234Phoenix61397Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments of Con were under-supported and easily rebutted. One can easily say cons arguments were extremely ignorant.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Daisy1234Phoenix61397Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: basically ff
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
Daisy1234Phoenix61397Tied
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: Arguments because CON never made arguments, just bald assertions; Sources because PRO offered sources.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Daisy1234Phoenix61397Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never really made an argument.