THBT: WiKiPEDIA is a MORE RELIABLE SOURCE for INFORMATION than FOX NEWS
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 6 votes and 11 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- History
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 5,000
- Required rating
- 1000
THBT: WiKiPEDIA is a MORE RELIABLE SOURCE for INFORMATION than FOX NEWS
DEFINITIONS:
WiKiPEDIA is "a multilingual online encyclopedia created and maintained as an open collaboration project by a community of volunteer editors using a wiki-based editing system. It is the largest and most popular general reference work on the World Wide Web. It is also one of the 15 most popular websites as ranked by Alexa, as of August 2020. It features exclusively free content and has no advertising. It is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, an American non-profit organization funded primarily through donations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
MORE RELIABLE [comparative form of] RELIABLE is "better suit[ed] or fit to be relied on; more worthy of dependence, reliance or trust; more dependable, more trustworthy "
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reliable
SOURCE is "the person, place or thing from which something (information, goods, etc.) comes or is acquired."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/source
INFORMATION is "things that are or can be known about a given topic; communicable knowledge of something."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/information
FOX NEWS is "an American multinational conservative cable news television channel. It is owned by Fox News Media, which itself is owned by the Fox Corporation. The channel broadcasts primarily from studios at 1211 Avenue of the Americas in New York City. Fox News provides service to 86 countries and overseas territories worldwide, with international broadcasts featuring Fox Extra segments during ad breaks."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News
BURDEN of PROOF
Wikipedia advises:
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
As instigator PRO bears the larger burden, however CON has a responsibility to affirm that FOX is more reliable than Wikipedia. PRO must show evidence that Wikipedia is more reliable than FOX. CON must show evidence that FOX NEWS is more reliable than Wikipedia.
PRO is requesting sincere and friendly engagement on this subject.
No trolls or kritiks, please.
- RULES --
1. Forfeit=auto loss
2. Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. For all intents and purposes, Donald Trump may not be used as a source of information. Trump may be quoted but Trump's testimony or opinion must never be mistaken for reliable evidence
5. For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate
- FOX starts with a political objective and organizes facts to forward that goal.
- WiKiPEDiA is a popular survey with links.
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/12/11/fox-news-ends-2019-with-highest-rated-prime-time-ratings-ever/?sh=7e35068a3347
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
- https://www.alexa.com/topsites
- https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.fox_corporation.65e09d90908f1cd7fa2e06a43f0dc92a.html
- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/
- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wikipedia/
- https://www.journalism.org/2020/04/01/cable-tv-and-covid-19-how-americans-perceive-the-outbreak-and-view-media-coverage-differ-by-main-news-source/
- https://theintercept.com/2019/09/28/impeachment-republicans-nixon-watergate/
“Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself. "
- CON does not dispute that FOX is an instrument of the American Republican party beholden to a large number of corporate advertisers for income
- CON does not dispute that WiKiPEDiA publishes independent of any international political or corporate interest
- VOTERS should assess whether a project of hundreds of thousands of volunteer independent researchers and encyclopedists balanced by hundreds of competing individual interest is not more likely to deliver objective information than state or corporate controlled sources
- CON does not dispute that FOX's authority ultimately derives from the private interests a single carpetbagging billionaire
- CON does not dispute that WiKiPEDiA has no ultimate authority beyond the voluntary and entirely public checks and balances and uses by billions of users worldwide
- VOTERS should decide whether authoritarian approaches to journalism are more credible or more likely to promote freedom of speech than democratic systems
- PRO's III.1 pointed out that WiKiPEDiA itself warns users against over-reliance on WiKiPEDiA as a "definitive source in and of itself"
- CON repeats PRO's point but ignores the overall argument that WiKiPEDiA is nevertheless more accurate than FOX, which we saw was rated as "borderline questionable"
- Let's agree that no source is immune to error and so entirely reliable.
- VOTERS should assess which is preferable:
- A source that is cautious about accuracy and warns users up front about its limitiations
- but mostly gets its facts straight
- or
- A source that calls itself "fair and balanced" and "most trusted" but in fact is consistently rated as the least accurate news network, and regularly misreports and sensationalizes stories.
- FOX News president Roger AIles actually once falsely claimed "that in 15 years [FOX has] never taken a story down because it was wrong" which got the Washington Post noting that some false stories (like the Washington Monument tilting after an an earthquake) never get taken down or retracted.
- CON does not dispute that FOX News was created to manufacture right-bias and subjective reporting
- VOTERS should consider whether any source that prioritizes political bias can be more reliable than a source where bias is regularly challenged and considered
- CON argues that in the rarefied environment of scholarship, primary sources are considered more reliable than tertiary sources.
- PRO notes that such a statement is overly broad and does not consider that most informational needs and sources are not scholarly
- For example, a Civil War general's diary might be more reliable than an encyclopedia for confirming maneuvers or assessing troop morale but would be far less reliable than an encyclopedia for getting an accurate death count, which numbers are notoriously unreliable in the immediate aftermath of battle but generally pretty accurate once the government has counted its burials
- Traditionally, there has been an information gap in the time between the news story and the history books. PRO contends that Wikipedia uniquely addresses this gap- more accurate and more broad than daily news but far more timely than than the history books, while also documenting the evolution of the story, the timeline of the facts as they were understood
- For example, a video of a police shooting is a primary source but it doesn't contain any information about context, or important precedents of facts or antecedents of facts. The video does not offer toxicology reports or annual police brutality statistics. The primary source is ignorant of all kinds of information and inherently more biased and so less trustworthy
- Better than any other source of information, WiKiPEDiA is regularly updating and re-contextualizing major events and quickly becomes a far more reliable tertiary source than any one primary source
To accept... that Wikipedia is a more reliable source of information than Fox News, it must first be established that Wikipedia is in fact a reliable source of information.
- False, we are comparing relative reliability of two entities. No absolutes are warranted
- To accept that a bloodhound is bigger than an terrier, we don't need to establish that bloodhounds are big
- That WiKiPEDiA projects a higher standard for reliable sources than just itself improves WiKiPEDiA's reliability relative to FOX
- https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/yes-roger-fox-news-has-retracted-false-stories/329355/
- https://www.politifact.com/article/2014/jul/01/introducing-scorecards-tv-networks/
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/roger-ailes-attests-to-fox-newss-factual-perfection/2012/04/13/gIQAQSi6ET_blog.html
- PURPOSE and INTENDED AUDIENCE
- AUTHORITY and CREDIBILITY
- ACCURACY and RELIABILITY
- OBJECTIVITY or BIAS
“CON argues that in the rarefied environment of scholarship, primary sources are considered more reliable than tertiary sources.”
- Roger Alles made a single false claim
- A Pew poll summary gave opinions about people based on their primary news outlet
“…although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose.”
- CON does not dispute that FOX is an instrument of the American Republican party
- CON concedes advertisers can create bias and asks for specifics but so long as PRO and CON agree that FOX editorial opinion demonstrates preference to non-journalistic influence while WiKi prefers no political or corporate influence, the point is proved
- Jeffrey Merkey's claim of bribing Jimmy Wales in 2008 lacks credibility
- Consider the source- Merkey remains one of WiKi's most famous trolls- he'd been permabanned 3 years earlier for "personal attacks, legal threats, harassment, disruption" and new-alts have been regularly banned since- even as recently as this summer
- WiKi has published all bans and interactions with Merkey, including the fact that his bio was never protected from editors
- CON has failed to show any monetary influence on WIki
- CON disputes "carpetbagging" but concedes that FOX's authority ultimately derives from a single billionaire
- CON argues that a non-profit CEO with no fiscal or editorial control over authorship is just as authoritarian an influence over factual reporting as direct government intervention
- That's like arguing that a democracy is just as authoritarian as a dictatorship because both have a top exec
- As we've seen with the COVID story, FOX is willing to misinform and therefore endanger it viewership to justify the current administration's inaction and with no internal checks or corrections of facts
- The advantage of WiKi is that it doesn't claim its own authority but rather points to sources like the CDC and WHO for COVID information. WiKi may not be immune to misinformation but any misinformation is constantly subject to challenge and correction (unlike FOX)
There have only been two substantial arguments made about Fox
- CON misses the point. What's more trustworthy?
- A source that cautions readers that all media is fallible and should be cross-checked
- or
- A source that inaccurately calls itself "most trusted" and denies ever getting the fact wrong
- There are hundreds of articles written about the inaccuracies of FOX with no parallel to WiKi.
- CON still does not dispute that FOX was created to manufacture right-bias and subjective reporting
- CON objects to the word "rarefied" as a substitute for addressing the point
- PRO's argument is not confined to academia. We are talking about getting accurate, non-biased information generally
- CON has applied a general rule about primary vs tertiary sources without ever showing evidence that academia prefers FOX over WiKi as an unbiased source
- CON failed to address PRO's point that may primary, first person on the spot reports are inherently less informed than the tertiary sources that collate sources and document more objectively later
- CON dropped PRO's information gap argument
- That WiKi projects a higher standard for reliable sources than just itself improves WiKi's reliability relative to FOX
PRO has brought a camel and is trying to convince us it’s a dog. There is a category error.
- CON is arguing by analogy that WIki is not a source of information at all, when 1.5 billion users have already established that WiKi is the most popular source for information history
- PRO is arguing that one particular mutt makes a better pet than one particular bloodhound and CON is arguing that in the world of dog shows, my mutt isn't technically any breed of dog
- CON's specific categorization of sources according to academic value ignores the popular use and value of information generally. VOTERS should recall PRO place no such stricture on our common definition of SOURCE or INFORMATION in spite of CON's attempts to confine our argument to such.
- VOTERS should assess whether a project of thousands of volunteer independent researchers and encyclopedists balanced by hundreds of competing individual interest is not more likely to deliver objective information than state or corporate controlled sources
- VOTERS should decide whether authoritarian approaches to journalism are more credible or more likely to promote freedom of speech than democratic systems
- VOTERS should assess which is preferable: a source that warns users up front about its limitations but works hard to self-correct or source that call itself most accurate but is consistently rated ad the least accurate source of news
- VOTERS should consider whether any source that prioritizes political bias can be more reliable than a source where bias is regularly challenged
- Thx to CON for an excellent debate
- Thx to VOTERS for their kind consideration
- Please VOTE PRO
“The term [CEO] refers to the person who makes all the key decisions regarding the company, which includes all sectors and fields of the business, including operations, marketing, business development, finance, human resources, etc.”
- PRO misses the point. Which is more a reliable source?
- A nationally recognized news outlet
- or
- A source that literally says of itself, “Wikipedia is not a reliable source”
"Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
this is where it happened
Here's that debate.
You're welcome, even though it didn't turn out in your favor. I note, however, that you remain at the top on the leaderboard. Congratulations for that. Undefeated is not all it's cracked up to be [I can afford to say that, having lost]. The ruthlessness, fairly and nobly applied will return, I am certain.
Thank you! That means a lot coming from someone with your reputation
Thanks for voting, fauxlaw!
Thanks for voting!
Congratulations, Fruit_Inspector! Well argued.
Thank you. This site certainly does represent many schools of thought. It has been helpful in forcing me to be more consistent and clear in presenting both conservatism and Christianity.
Dang. Well done, king slayer!
I like to see good conservative debaters on the site.
now its your turn to end your win streak!
Thanks! And a 95 win streak is an amazing feat for oromagi. Like you said, that is probably the longest streak we will see.
Congratulations! You ended the longest win streak we are likely to ever see. 95 confirmed, or even 98 if you count the forgone conclusions in the voting period.
That I think this debate is deserving of attention, should only speak highly of both you and your opponent. That I deleted votes in obvious disregard for the voting standards, is nothing against you. If in the next hour or two vote bombs come in against you (I doubt it will happen, Oro isn’t the type to try to rig things) those will be deleted as well.
Ah I see. Since I did not instigate the debate, I will leave any proposed changes to be suggested by oromagi since the instigator frames the debate. While not flashy, I have no problem leaving the description as it was presented. Thanks for the suggestion though.
As a side, since it appears I will likely win, I feel like it would be hard for me to propose any changes that would not be self-aggrandizing.
ikr, and it wasn't even whiteflame who did him in.
Oro is losing!!!
NANI?!?!?!?! :O
I am gonna try to put this debate(or maybe better, even YOU) on the HoF.
This is a historic debate, and that description is kinda bland.
Ah yes. Because a debate about defining the BoP results in personal opinion on a conduct vote. DART 2020
Well I appreciate that, thank you
It shouldn't impact the debate. All the more reason to question the reason the question was posed to begin with. But given that I did promise that I would keep the commentary strictly focused on the content of the debate, let me congratulate you on a well-argued position. You, for the many reasons I already listed, were quite adept at identifying the onuses, and satisfying your own. Your arguments were concise, focused, and straight-to-the-point. Well done, Fruit_Inspector.
Don't worry, I'm not too concerned the amount of notifications. I was just wondering if I was missing some context about what impact changing the debate description would have.
He's been oddly interested in *bumping* this debate, having done it several times and then deleting his comments afterwards. If I were to guess, his question--unprompted--would be yet another attempt at *bumping* this debate during the voting period. One would imagine that if you or oromagi were concerned with the content of the short description, you would've brought it to his attention. My response to these "antics" to my chagrin have been less than savory.
Let me apologize to you, and oromagi, if my feud with the moderation has flooded you with unnecessary notifications. From here on out, I'll keep the commentary strictly focused on the content of the debate.
Just out of curiosity, was there an issue that prompted this question? I haven't read through all of the comments and am wondering if this has something to do with the controversy regarding Athias' vote, or something else. Thanks
The current short description reads: “ Required rating=1000 Anybody is welcome to accept this debate”
Would you both like it changed to any statement about this debate or something? Such changes can be easily made so long as this is still in the voting period.
""Predetermining the BoP" was something CON could have disputed, but he did not."
Neither party has to "dispute" the other person's conduct in order for it to be considered in a vote. If so, then please show me in the Voting Policy where it states that.
"There is no "unfairness" about something mutually agreed to, as long as neither party is being pressured by an outside factor."
When was it "mutually agreed"? You mean there's a tacit agreement made by both parties upon accepting the debate? Once again, according to the guideline, I DON'T HAVE to demonstrate that it was either "excessive" or in breech in of mutually agreed upon rules, so long as I can substantiate that it was unfair--an option discretely presented in the guideline, notably through the disjunction "OR."
"Your argument itself is nonsensical"
Your disagreement does not inform "nonsensical."
" your own personal whim about what a debate should or shouldn't be"
Aren't you the doing the same thing you allege that I'm doing? Weren't you the one who said debate was about "cornering your opponent"? And on whose "whim" should MY VOTE be based? I never employ "whim" when it concerns participating in or analyzing debate.
"It is literally one of the most basic functions of debate to outline what you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge."
No, it most certainly IS NOT. Just because you see it practiced here commonly doesn't mean that it is a "basic function" of debate. The burden of proof will always be determined by the proposition itself. Satisfying the burden is contingent on the affirmation or negation.
"You're not just "interpreting things differently," you're challenging one of the well-established norms of debate."
It is a "norm" here. It IS NOT a norm of debate. And please point out where in the guidelines it expressly forbids one from "challenging one of the well-established norms..."
"BoP is defined by your POSITION & ROLE relative to the resolution (i.e. are you PRO or CON. Are you the one making the claim or the one challenging it?). This is again the implicit norm for debate, and challenging it in your vote is uncalled for."
You've just imputed a contradiction. If this is the case, then the Burden of Proof cannot be left to the outline of that which "you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge."
You guys once again are making stuff up. I've read through the guidelines, and I've read the policies. There's nothing in them which expressly forbids my awarding conduct on that basis that I chose.