THBT: WiKiPEDIA is a MORE RELIABLE SOURCE for INFORMATION than FOX NEWS

Okay. But if the source wasn't published on NCBI, could we really trust it? The discussion admits, it doesn't capture structural racism. You need replication to prove generalizability. They admit potential selection bias. They underestimate structural racism and myocardian infraction. So basically it's saying "don't trust us" in a roundabout way.

Except the subject isn't which source is 100% accurate. The degree of accuracy is not being disputed. The relation of reliability is.

to be fair, 99% of research says they are problematic. From Undefeatable's Systemic Racism debate for example, the source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133127/ -- which Undefeatable notes, gathers dozens upon dozens of sources to prove its ideas) admits:

" limitations should be noted. First, although we obtained numerous measures of structural racism, these measures do not fully capture the construct of structural racism.

our results require replication across different spatial scales to determine the generalizability of the results.

Although we controlled for health insurance, there may be racial differences in healthcare access for a diagnosis of myocardial infarction, and clinical outcomes would partially circumvent this potential selection bias

our results are likely an under-estimate of the relationship between structural racism and myocardial infarction"

All trusted research MUST say it is not comprehensive and there is more work to be done. It is impossible that all research and information is conveyed with 100% accuracy, even with collection of sources or meta analysis. Despite admitting potential bias and limitations, the causation and correlation is highlighted.

The paradox doesn't turn against Con at all. If we are to take Wikipedia's statement as it is presented, then Wikipedia is reliably "unreliable." But if it is not, as you postulated, telling the truth about itself, then it weakens its credibility, which undermines its reliability. Either way, the paradox weakens PRO's instigation. It's very akin to the "liar's paradox." It was also a clever approach by CON to discredit Wikipedia as a reliable source at all. By doing so, he took Wikipedia out of any standard of "measuring" reliability. Even if PRO were successful in undermining the reliability of FOX NEWS, FOX NEWS would still be "more reliable." At best PRO could only demonstrate that FOX was equally unreliable--i.e. not reliable at all.

CON won this debate in the first round unbeknownst to PRO.

Yes, I placed very little impact on the paradox however, the scholarly basis destroys pros own argument. Pro wanted to say, you judge research by accuracy and bias. Con says you can’t even use as reliable resource of info.

Clever argument from Con. The "paradox" turns against Con, though: If you trust Wikipedia's claim that it's not a reliable source of information, then how can you trust Wikipedia that it's not reliable? Wikipedia might be lying to you about the fact that it's not reliable. That means we need to dig deeper & not take Wikipedia at its own word in all circumstances.

I thought Pro had the right idea -- as he argued, "that WiKiPEDiA projects a higher standard for reliable sources than just itself improves WiKiPEDiA's reliability relative to FOX" -- but I guess he failed to emphasize it for the voters. Wikipedia, at the very least, is a reliable source of its own unreliability. Fox, on the other hand, pretends that it's reliable while actively misleading viewers using known cognitive biases & errors. In other words, Wikipedia is more reliable than Fox about the fact of its own unreliability.

will this be the end to orogami's win streak?

I think Oromagi has gone rusty from lack of framework based debates. If he was arguing about Death Penalty he would likely argue it from a legal perspective, but also likely miss out on moralistic framework, economic basis, etc (and probably fail to justify which one we should prefer the most). That's what I feel at least.

I'm gonna call it Tabula Rosa from now on lmao

funnily enough, I have a bias towards Wiki. The mediabiasfactcheck.com almost completely convinced me, until I realized that this was only part of the framework where Pro was working under. If the title had been the same as my debate (which Oromagi tries to establish the framework that it is the same), with identical arguments given, Oromagi would've certainly gotten my vote

Roger, and roger.

I remember several months ago that you had a topic on nearly an identical subject. I think, and I may be paraphrasing, you intended to break us all of our addiction to Wikipedia. I remember taking a slightly nuanced position against the subject--not necessarily disagreeing, but giving Wikipedia some credit for its overall structure. So I understand your reference to your public bias. And while I may not have mirrored your reasons, I do understand your approach. As for myself, I tried to focus more on the structure of the debate and its logical form (e.g. who satisfied their onus? Whose argument and sources remained relevant to affirmation/negation of the proposition? etc.) And our clearly distinct approaches provides all the more reason that the "bandwagon" characterization is completely unwarranted.

Suspect comments, especially from moderators, will always spark my attention.

I agree with you; our RFD's draw upon differing observations to reach similar results, so I see no bandwagon. However, as I advised Whiteflame, it was a difficult vote, not because I'm partial to either debater, but because I have a personal, and publicly aware bias against Wiki, mainly because of it's own opinion of its reliability. Since reliability is a primary element of oromagi's argument, I very nearly did not vote at all. In the end, I did because oromagi tried, and failed, I thought, regardless of reliability [and I was able to dismiss my bias], to put Wiki and Fox on the same playing field, and they just are not. Fruit_Inspector's argument of tiered sources was a superb counter-argument to argue that very point.

If it helps to see my perspective, check out the "abridged debate" which I added to my RFD which I try to reduce their arguments as much as possible so that only the non repeating essential claims are there.

I won't deny having done similar with bridging the intuitive gaps someone seemed to be pointing toward, but did not quite bridge themselves. Voting it would seem is an art as much as a science.

"*facepalm* Largely due to Seld's change of heart, to which you should probably read #50."

Yes, but as MisterChris already delineated, it is perfectly within seldiora's discretion to "change his heart." And if you have a gripe with seldiora's vote, then address seldiora.

"I have not yet read the votes"

I figured as much.

"But again, someone inside said group stated: "It kinda does seem bandwagon" so by your logic he declared it to be a full bandwagon... Which when something known as context is applied, is clearly not what he accused himself of doing."

Introduce yourself to the definition of "seem."

"Further, as your vote is the lead, it would be impossible for you to have jumped on said bandwagon if one has occured, so quit being so dramatic."

I'm not being "dramatic." I'm calling you out on your "antics." You're tacitly attempting to insult the voting for yet to be known reasons, especially to your own admission, after not having read the RFDs. And I already know that it would be impossible for me to jump the bandwagon since my vote is the lead vote. Hence, I asked you earlier if you were questioning the integrity of fauxlaw's and seldiora's vote, not mine.

It's just a "weird" statement to throw out there without any solicitation or provocation.

to be fair, when first reading over the debate, I made all the linkage for Oromagi necessary to win the debate. Oromagi wins if I accept:
- When people casually read over sources they don't care about research standard of citation with tertiary sources
- We ought to evaluate the information that Wiki provides, and its status with correctness, rather than the potential downfalls
- We should evaluate the established credibility, by the 8 different scholarly standards, ignoring the research standard that Con tells us

But he didn't say that we should assume all three. He just kind of put these three implications here and expected to win based off that, despite the plausibility that the reliable source of information use should be based off of a research framework (rather than a casual framework). As Pro did not justify this exact differentiation, I feel like he loses if I don't add extra ideas that he's working for.

> Why are "you" cautious about it?

*facepalm* Largely due to Seld's change of heart, to which you should probably read #50.

> It is an accusation. A tacit one. There really is no reason to bring it up. If either fauxlaw and seldiora mirrored my reasons, then that'd be understandable. But they don't.

I have not yet read the votes (I know of Seld's ahead of time due to moderation stuff about a vote being changed). But again, someone inside said group stated: "It kinda does seem bandwagon" so by your logic he declared it to be a full bandwagon... Which when something known as context is applied, is clearly not what he accused himself of doing.

Further, as your vote is the lead, it would be impossible for you to have jumped on said bandwagon if one has occured, so quit being so dramatic.

""If someone tries to define a cow as an automobile or airplane for a debate, my knowledge of English goes against that, but under pure Tabula Rosa, I would have to accept that insane definition."

bruh"

Do you guys mean "Tabula Rasa"? I started looking up pink tablets. And there's no issue presetting any definitions. But the burden of proof itself cannot be defined by any participant. It's a terrible trend which this site allows. Onus probandi is always subject to the demands of the proposition, not any one debater, even the "proposer."

"There's a momentum which I am cautious about."

Why are "you" cautious about it?

"Not an accusation, I would just declare it to be a bandwagon were that the case."

It is an accusation. A tacit one. There really is no reason to bring it up. If either fauxlaw or seldiora mirrored my reasons, then that'd be understandable. But they don't.

"Ultimately, my main intent upon seeing this, to bump, but also make some small note of the voting score (one really rare for oro)."

Then what is the "bandwagon"? Our voting against the favor of oromagi? The debate is not about that. Believe it or not, any one person here can "win," and I use that term loosely, a debate. Just as anyone can "lose" one. Fauxlaw was correct in stating that this was not orogami's best subject to tackle. Oromagi's strength is in laying out his premises and sourcing them accordingly. How does one source for "reliability"? Fruit_Inspector stuck to his proverbial guns and kept his arguments relevant to the resolution of the debate's proposition. And it's for that reason, this "momentum" has shifted away from oromagi--not that it should be placed with him since all new debates are essentially blank slates.

Read the arguments Ragnar, and the read the RFD's before levying unwarranted characterizations.

"If someone tries to define a cow as an automobile or airplane for a debate, my knowledge of English goes against that, but under pure Tabula Rosa, I would have to accept that insane definition."

bruh

Yeah, but presumably, he did not witness your "change of heart." On what basis is he a presuming a "bandwagon" effect? Fauxlaw's RFD is starkly different from mine, and yours while including our names (for some reason?) is different from mine and fauxlaw's. So what is the bandwagon?

No, this is just a tacit attempt to insult the voting while simultaneously claiming oblivion in order distance himself from said attempt.

"If someone tries to define a cow as an automobile or airplane for a debate, my knowledge of English goes against that, but under pure Tabula Rosa, I would have to accept that insane definition."

I think this is a good thing because it promotes responding to your opponent's arguments and warranting why they're wrong

"I didn't really go completely tabula rosa"

I've long been opposed to pure Tabula Rosa voting. We all speak English, and this simplifies things... As opposed to the debaters having to teach us basic literacy every debate. If someone tries to define a cow as an automobile or airplane for a debate, my knowledge of English goes against that, but under pure Tabula Rosa, I would have to accept that insane definition.

There's a momentum which I am cautious about. Not an accusation, I would just declare it to be a bandwagon were that the case.

Ultimately, my main intent upon seeing this, to bump, but also make some small note of the voting score (one really rare for oro).

It kinda does seem bandwagon but I didn't really go completely tabula rosa as I mostly went from assumptions I already had from reading the first two rounds. The last round and context of debate as a whole does change the decision overall in my opinion. By Virtue of Fruit continuously doubling down on the same point, he's able to achieve the impact of the central argument, contrary to Oromagi who never disputed that he used the same source for standard of research (unlike my debate against you, "source of information" is different in precision against "information that is provided", which I believe is what Oromagi wanted to argue)

Why would you insinuate some "bandwagon" effect? Are you questioning the integrity of fauxlaw's and seldiora's vote? Have you read through our votes? Have you even read the arguments? That's just a "weird" statement to make.

Don't know if it's just a bandwagon or not, but still, wow!

eh. First time round I only looked at the surface. Second time I tried to analyze a bit further and see where the two's arguments actually stood.

I will be voting this weekend, given that the stakes are pretty high.

Technically seldiora is allowed to change his opinion on the debate and revote... but it seems a bit scummy to me.

three vote now.

Never before have I seen oromagi take a two vote deficit. Very interested to see this.

Holy shit. . .

NOTE: Per Seldiora's request, his vote has been deleted.

I'll admit, my personal perspective is kinda torn on this one. I'll be interested to see what arguments each side used.

I really hope you do vote. I'll be very interested in your perspective

This was a difficult debate to judge, mainly because I think Pro's resolution lacked merit because Wiki and Fox simply exist for different purposes. I kept debating myself wondering why I should try to judge the merits. Fox is essentially a news outet; Wiki is essentially an encyclopedia. That Fox has a bias, no one will argue. That Wiki gives itself a poor reliability grade is also undeniable. That they both offer information is true, but I would not compare Facebook and the OED on that basis. Sorry, oromagi, this was not your best shot subject-wise, although you may end up winning just on your overall strength as a debater with extensive experience and know-how. Fruit Inspector, considering your experience compared to oromagi, you did a superb job. Using your library source was a beautiful argument. Being unaware of it before, I've added it to my favorites because I see it as invaluable to my profession. Thanks.

Can try to get through it this weekend.

care to give your personal thoughts? You're the most reliable voter I know of, other than Ragnar.

If either of you believe that I was unfair in my RFD, please notify me. I'll be happy to discuss it with you further.

I would never engage in "revenge" voting. Oromagi, in our Catholic Church debate did nothing wrong. [My only contention was with Ragnar's vote.] I know you jest, but I'd like to limit any unwarranted consideration of that notion. And suffices to say, my RFD should quell any doubt that I examined both of their arguments carefully, and in my fashion, provided a long response.

And Fruit_Inspector shouldn't "miraculously" win this debate. He did win this debate, regardless of the voting. In actuality, your vote makes little sense. You presumed the same non sequitur that oromagi did, and you judged it more like a wrestling match than an actual debate. Any voter who maintains the consistency and rules of logic will see the same thing I saw: Fruit_Inspector won, oromagi lost.

Reason for Decision (continued):

Lastly, the Contender, albeit concise, does an adept job at clarifying the onuses they each bear by the end of third Round. PRO was attempting to move the goal post by focusing on accuracy without connecting it back to either his proposition or even his own definition (i.e. "reliable.") The Contender doubles down in round 3 and let's everyone know that over which they are debating: "Which is more reliable?" And according to the definition submitted by PRO, reliable would be described as "better suit[ed] or fit to be relied on; more worthy of dependence, reliance or trust; more dependable, more trustworthy." A definition, which should be noted was taken from "Wiktionary" which shares a parent company with Wikipedia. I say that because it is reasonable to presume that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable" would also have been taken from "Wiktionary." PRO did not do a sufficient job in meeting the description of his own definition, which suggests that the sources of information would be more "trustworthy," "dependable," etc. The contender remains focused on his burden and satisfies his onus by demonstrating that Wikipedia suggests of itself that it isn't a reliable source of information at all.

Thus, the winner of this debate in my view is without doubt, Fruit_Inspector.

Reason for Decision:

This was a rather interesting debate between PRO, oromagi, and CON, Fruit_Inspector.

Now on to the reasons for my decision.

Spelling and Grammar: They were both pretty fine with regard to this aspect of the debate.

Conduct: I awarded the conduct point to the Contender because it is not PRO's prerogative to DEFINE the burden of proof. The burden of proof is determined by the proposition itself. As the one who proposed the proposition, and thereby affirm its truth, it's PRO's onus to demonstrate that Wikipedia is "a more reliable source for information than FOX NEWS." Contrary to PRO's outline, CON is not only required to demonstrate that FOX NEWS is a "more reliable source of information than Wikipedia." It's the contender's onus to either negate PRO's affirmation, or demonstrate that PRO's affirmation isn't supported by sufficient evidence. The Contender can negate the argument in three ways: (1) demonstrate that Wikipedia is as reliable as FOX NEWS, and vice versa, (2) FOX NEWS is more reliable, and (3) Wikipedia isn't reliable at all. The contender chose the third option. PRO's attempt to pigeonhole the Contender's capacity in the debate, especially with a prerogative he does not have, is a demonstration of poor conduct.

Better sources: I also awarded the better sources point to the contender. As meticulous as PRO is in providing sources, the sources are meaningless if they do not INFORM the truth of one's position. Many of the sources PRO provided fail to account for the integrity of their own information. That is, they don't provide any methodology as to how they gauged the accuracy or inaccuracy of their subject's information, much less its reliability, "trustworthiness and dependability," the objective of this debate. Some were opinion pieces (e.g. Washington Post article.) Not to mention, particularly with the POLITIFACT links, their links to the information they cited led nowhere. It led to a page which stated, "Here's a fact: You ended up in the wrong place!" PRO did not do his due diligence in verifying his own sources. The contender on the other hand, while providing fewer sources, cited information directly relevant to his argument. And upon examining his sources, there were no dead links among them. This is clearly a case of quality over quantity, so I awarded the point to the Contender, alone.

Better Arguments: Now, it is my firm belief that CON won this in the first round. And CON won this debate by citing the apparent paradox. Wikipedia itself suggests that it isn't a reliable source of information, which CON pointed out and sourced. So logically, we can only scrutinize the affirmation or negation of Wikipedia's statement. If Wikipedia is stating the truth, then Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information at all. (CON Wins.) If Wikipedia is stating a falsehood, then Wikipedia is on some level inaccurate (weakens PRO's argument.) PRO addresses this paradox with a non sequitur, "we are comparing the relative reliability of two entities." CON does well to address this in round two when he states, "My argument is ultimately not about where Wikipedia is compared to Fox News on a scale of source reliability. My argument is ultimately that Wikipedia cannot even be categorized as a reliable source for information. It cannot even be placed on the scale of reliability because it doesn’t belong there at all." PRO continues with the non sequitur statements in Round 3 (that Wikipedia isn't a source of information at all, WHICH CON DOES NOT ARGUE,) and CON again does well to address them.

Furthermore, PRO does not do a sufficient job at all in outlining the reason BIAS =/= reliable, OBJECTIVE = reliable, ACCURACY = reliable. He defines neither objective nor bias, which for his argument bred confusion since he used the term "objective" in two different contexts (e.g. "FOX starts with a political OBJECTIVE and organizes facts to forward that goal," and "...hundreds of competing individual interest is not more likely to deliver OBJECTIVE information than state or corporate controlled sources.") PRO continued to misrepresent CON's arguments, as well as his own sources: PRO claimed that there were HUNDREDS of articles written about the inaccuracies of FOX NEWS in Round Two, but cites an NYT article about President Trump's statements about FOX NEWS, the accuracy of which were being scrutinized, not FOX NEWS itself.

To be continued...

ohhh snap! Is this revenge for Catholic Church debate? XD
I jest, I jest. Good luck on your vote. I'm eager to see if Fruit miraculously won this debate.

R3 SOURCES:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-03-13/Scandal_fallout_continues
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive25#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/trump-fox-and-friends-fact-check.html

oromagi with the solid rebuttal and fruit inspector comes back swinging, this has been such a good debate.

ohhh! that argument's gotta hurt. Nicely done from fruit inspector.

Sources for Round 2:

https://researchguides.library.brocku.ca/external-analysis/evaluating-sources#:~:text=As%20you%20examine%20each%20source,timeliness%2C%20and%20objectivity%20or%20bias

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7291382.stm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Controversy_regarding_Wales's_status_as_co-founder
---(was in a hurry and forgot to lookup up a RELIABLE source. Lobbed it up for you!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

It's kind of funny how everyone on this site is like an angry dog on a leash