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

I didn't realize how new you were to the site. I, too, welcome you. My comments may have been premature because there is a delay, only bgased on your relative activity, that prevents your being able to vote right away. It's an easy threshold to cross, and y6ou may have already crossed it; I don't know. And, yes, it is possible to remain objective even having a bias. We must do it all the time. I was forceful because other than actually debating, we must mostly be careful in comments within debates. Ands it actually depends on what you say in voting that determines whether it is worthy of report, which just means that a member refers the vote to a mod to determine if the voting verbiage is within voting policy, or not.

I agree with you that your submission is fair use under Federal copyright law. In fact, I'd say just about any copy & paste on this site would be arguably academic or scholarly and certainly not for profit and so likely to be fair use. I'd like to see us hold ourselves to a higher standard, linking to anything that we borrow and I'll readily admit I am as forgetful and lazy as any in pursuit of that standard.

I agree that mediabiasfactcheck.com is subjective and unscientific, its the fact that mediabiasfactcheck.com is the only ready online bias analysis that doesn't come with a pre-packaged agenda from some corporate or polticial entity that I like.

As Howard Kurtz @ Fox News notes, "“If somebody invented what they thought was a brilliant tool to measure bias and he convinced a skeptic like me that it worked, I think in this polarized era, there [would] be a lot of public skepticism about who was behind it, who was making these judgments about when news organizations lean one way or another." Let's not kid ourselves that there's any bias analysis that the majority will perceive as unbiased- at least mediabiasfactcheck.com isn't getting paid to inject bias into the analysis. If you know a better tool, I'd love to see the link. Thx for friend request.

Again, I'm new to the website (thank you for your warm welcome oromagi) and I was unaware of the unwritten rule at the time. If there is a way to edit or retract commentary please let me know since I can't seem to find where that may be.

In response to fauxlaw stating "you have effectively taken yourself out of the potential role of voting" by linking sources to con "sufficient to demonstrate your bias in this debate", I have three thoughts. Firstly, one can be bias and objectively judge the merits of either sides arguments, in fact, acknowledging bias is a powerful way to nullify it. I highly doubt that you are any less predisposed to bias. Secondly, whether or not I vote, I will give reasons exclusively tied to the specific arguments and rebuttals given by either party always. Thirdly, I haven't entered into two debates or written in 100 forums to date, so I don't imagine I will be voting here. If I do vote, it would not be a report-able offense unless I clearly didn't consider each participants arguments. Should you be reported for seeking to censor another person's vote? I don't think so, but it certainly is a demonstration bias to do so.

"I have no objection to keeping your comments posted as long as we acknowledge that these points are cut and pasted from Conservapedia, which source retains all the vulnerabilities of Wikipedia without any of the documentation or, you know, facts."
The reason I did not mention the source is because as far as Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. In this case, I am specifically using single points with individual sources intact for research purposes. Conservapedia, itself, may not be entirely credible, but I have check and verified each individual source given. As I have already demonstrated in these sources, Wikipedia often rejects scholarly criticisms and often prefers to perpetuate misinformation rather than correct it when called out. This has been demonstrated on multiple occasions. Also to say that these specific sources are invalid based on Conservapedia's reputation would be a classic example of a genetic fallacy. While you constantly quote them, consider the notion that Mediabias may also have bias influencing its ability to accurately judge other's biases. Mediabias tends to lean more left in general and should be taken with a grain of salt.

To Fruit_Inspector, I understand and my apologies for interfering in your debate, I wish you good luck.

I appreciate this community and I will learn from my mistakes made here. Thank you.

I'm actually a big fan Jefferson's Bible and Tolstoy's Gospel- essentially stripping the Bible down to Jesus's speech and collating. I don't know what kind of Bible Schafly will end up with once he removes all of Jesus' socialism and libtard criminal justice policies but I already know I hate it. There's a funny scene in the short-lived sci-fi TV show "Firefly" where this girl genius is trying to rectify all the internal contradictions in the Bible and we see her ripping out whole chunks at a time.

An interesting commentary you mention as your last point in your #18 re: removing liberal bias from the Bible. I met a woman in France whose Bible seemed to be a little shy of pages. About a quarter of them. I asked why, she told me she ripped out any page she did not understand or had disagreement, leaving everything else. I suppose that's one way to manage one's beliefs, but I wouldn't recommend it.

this might interest both of you. It's not the same topic, but it points out interesting ideas. https://www.debate.org/debates/FOX-is-the-most-vicious-nasty-manipulative-thing-ever-to-arise-in-the-US-in-terms-of-news./1/

To keep from any controversy in this debate, I will not plan to use any of the information provided. Honestly, I want to keep my points very simple and I already had an opening argument in mind that hopefully doesn't get too muddled in comparing the level of bias as a crucial component. I do appreciate your intention of support in this debate though Wesley.

Hi Wesley, welcome to the site!

RM is correct that adding arguments to any debate (yours or somebody else's) is always bad form since it has the effect of violating the characters per argument limit and voters sometimes forget whether they saw the argument within the bounds of the debate or out of bounds in comments. You are correct that this is only fellow courtesy and not an actual rule.

I have no objection to keeping your comments posted as long as we acknowledge that these points are cut and pasted from Conservapedia, which source retains all the vulnerabilities of Wikipedia without any of the documentation or, you know, facts.
You should always credit and cite other people's work on any part of this site.

mediabiasfactcheck.com rates Conservapedia "as Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as outright false information. This is not a credible source on any level or by any known criteria." Conservapedia is the project of Andrew Schafly, son of the famous Phyllis.

Here, for example, is a cut & paste from Conservapedia's article on BARACK OBAMA, " In early January 2017, Obama empowered holdovers in his administration to stage a coup against the Trump transition team and the incoming Trump administration. Barack Obama is the first American president since the transition of James Buchanan to Abraham Lincoln who refused a peaceful transfer of power to his elected successor. According to Joe Biden, who served for more than four decades in the nation's capital, there were no clean, bright, and articulate Blacks prior to Barack Obama."

mediabiasfactcheck.com also warns that Conservapedia sometimes borders on hate speech.

Conservapedia is currently working on a project to remove all the liberal bias from the Bible including liberal heresies such as "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" and Christ's final words on the cross.

Not to mention, in view of RM's commentary in his post #15, that you have effectively taken yourself out of the potential role of voting on this debate since you have so evidently offered Con talking points to argue, sufficient to demonstrate your bias in this debate. Should you vote, you will be reported.

Very well, you have made your point. I will personally take down my comments if pro doesn't specifically allow for them to be up within the next 12 hours.

You have stated very much other than common knowledge, you have helped Con so much so that he could plagiarise your work as an entire Round's worth of contentions.

I'm sorry I don't really see the problem with either this situation or your analogy, but I will take it down at oromagi's request (or Fruit_Inspector's) since it is not an actual rule for this forum and considering this information is already readily accessible. For instance, in your analogy imagine the stated patron merely pointed out basic blocks and maneuvers to hopefully only be a refresher to said MMA fighter to help them refocus on the fundamentals. Again, if we are talking about "pro-fighters" then I haven't stated anything but common knowledge. Again, I will take it down at the request of oromagi or Fruit_Inspector.

That's an unwritten rule in all debates. It's like you as an audience member running up to an MMA fighter and pointing out a weakness in the enemy's defensive habits or offensively creative move sequence that the person would not otherwise have come up with.

Was there a rule against helping either debater? If there was I will take my comments down.

This is a one on one debate.

Here is a link to a video corroborating all those stories. It has video evidence of Joe Biden literally saying everything you just accused FOX News of inaccurately reporting. As you put so nice, "Yes, that's limiting, too, isn't it? Oh, well." Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az0tl2pgAU8

Wikipedia claims to be "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That is both its strength and its biggest weakness. Although Wikipedia started as having all editors on an equal footing, it has evolved into a highly stratified structure where a large number of people cannot edit it. In order to edit Wikipedia, a person must master its wiki-markup language and a large number of complex rules. The number of people who edit Wikipedia on a regular basis has declined. Many editors left voluntarily, but many others have been "banned" or "blocked" by administrators or a community vote. In theory, people can edit Wikipedia without logging in, but in order to prevent "banned" users from editing, Wikipedia blocks various ranges of IP addresses, preventing persons who are not banned from editing from those locations, such as hotels, schools, and libraries. Wikipedia's terms and conditions bar people with a conflict of interest from directly editing Wikipedia articles. This prevents knowledgeable people who work for companies from editing articles relating to their work. Finally, because the administrator caste has certain political views, editors who do not conform to those beliefs are more likely to be "banned" or "blocked".

Yet to be fair, FOX News is pretty bias, but they are nowhere near the degree of censorship combined with espoused nonpartisan and "publicly managed" bias of Wikipedia. The project was initiated by atheist and entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and the agnostic philosophy professor Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001. An irony of Internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader". Journalist Joseph Farah stated "[Wikipedia]...is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known." In December 2010, Christian apologist JP Holding called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation". Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker", he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.

19. The Wikipedia article on the Haymarket Riots and subsequent trial of the labor terrorists claimed, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... " A college professor who wrote a book about the trial knew that a lot of evidence was presented during the lengthy trial and tried to correct the article. His account in the Chronicle of Higher Education shows the contempt that Wikipedia holds for scholarly experts.

20. Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the theory of evolution, such as Dr. William Dembski, whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by liberal critics. For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski. In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location. Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.

21. From 2008 until October 2014, the Wikipedia article on the 1978-79 Boston College Basketball Point Shaving Scandal named Joe Streater as one of the participating players. However, he was not even on the team that year. He was inserted into the article by an anonymous IP address and the erroneous information was left until the press publicized the error. https://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater-became-falsely-attached-boston-college-point-shaving-scandal.html/2

22. The Wikipedia article Vaxxed purports to be a review of Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, a 2016 American film alleging a cover-up by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism. In reality, this Wikipedia article is little more than a diatribe against Dr. Andrew Wakefield. The Wikipedia article describes Dr Wakefield as a "discredited anti-vaccine activist" but this is untrue. First, Dr Wakefield has said that he is not anti-vaccine. He is opposed to the MMR vaccine (a combination vaccine) but he is not opposed to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines being given in separate doses.

23. Leftist radical newspaper Washington Post is praised by Wikipedia for "winning prizes, using a fact-checker to fact-check lies", even though the majority of fact checks are criticisms of Trump and not of Trumps' official statements, and that it is an opinion newspaper.

24. Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, Jens Stoltenberg, was a pedophile who had served time in prison.

25. The article on the Proud Boys is blatantly biased towards the Left. The first sentence falsely claims "The Proud Boys are a far-right and neo-fascist male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada", despite the group trying to stop the liberals’ insurrection. As an example of the Wikipedia admins' lack of courage of their convictions, the article is also protected so no one can change it.

11. BBC presenter Lynn Parsons wrote Wikipedia claiming that her biography was false—including her birth date. Her request to have her article deleted was voted down.

12. Various attempts have been made on Wikipedia to emphasize the controversial fact that Elizabeth Warren claimed on many occasions to be a Native American and a "person of color" despite a lack of documented evidence. Due to the revival of this controversy by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, attempts were made to create a separate paragraph about the issue. However, a cabal of administrators instead insisted that the controversy remain buried in the bottom of a section about her 2012 campaign where many readers said they were unable to find it.

13. A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym Jagged85 made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence

14. In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush," but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least FOUR TIMES since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP." Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms. The edit summary of the redirect says, "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist."

15. In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing biassed content on behalf of their clients. Wikipedia selectively fails to enforce its ban on paid editing when the payments come from its large donors. Many organizations that visit the WMF Headquarters also engage in undisclosed paid editing to promote themselves. Links [1] https://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/18/the-thin-bright-line-part-2-wikipedia-donors-feel-entitled-to-more-than-a-mug-or-a-tote-bag/ [2] https://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/06/look-whos-visiting-the-wmf/

16. Small donations make Wikipedia irresponsible. Having over 100,000 small donors funding more than 60% of a non-profit's income actually reduces accountability to the donors. Because the donations are very small (about $30, on average), no one has sufficient influence over the Wikimedia Foundation to reach a threshold of accountability.

17. Wikipedia Commons, which collects public domain images, has drawn extensive criticism for sexually explicit material, including nude photos and photos of various acts. The editors of Wikipedia Commons have created a "Hot Sex Barnstar" to reward those people who upload particularly explicit images. When a former member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee asked to have it removed, many people opposed his suggestion.

18. Wikipedia's entry for the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination. Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination, and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:

Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.

Feel free to use this as a resource. Here I have provided some things that prove Wikipedia is bias:

1. Wikipedia falsely claimed that conservatives opposed to abortion are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". Wikipedia removed this bias only after it was identified by fact-checking website. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pro-abortion_violence

2. Labeled Anti-fa as "pro-democracy protesters"(Antifa members are the violent advocates of a murderous ideology that, according to “The Black Book of Communism,” killed between 85 million and 100 million people last century. )

3. Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ," a term that is an idiotic mockery of the Christian faith. Wikipedia used to say that the term is "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-Christian mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".

4. An editor included the June 2016 Orlando shootings on the List of Islamic terrorist attacks and an edit war ensued.

5. Wikipedia displays pervasive bias in making liberal statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.

6. For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, Wikipedia classified its critics, including Conservapedia, as "Fanatics and Special Interests."

7. Wikipedia makes a slight mention of though undercuts the significance of Adolf Hitler's opposition to Christianity that has been recorded, and doesn't, if barely at all admits that his public praise of Christianity was only for power purposes, as that had been part of an infiltration of churches to use for spouting Nazi propaganda. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Views_on_religion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_on_Christianity_and_%22Positive_Christianity%22 [3] https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Hitler-a-Christian.html

8. Michael Mann is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the Climategate scandal. Wikipedia decides to allow mention of his involvement with Climategate. Attempts to add the mention were repeatedly undone, though some mention of Climategate was eventually added on Mann's page.

9. When NBA Basketball player Jason Collins announced that he was a homosexual, his Wikipedia biography was altered to say that he was a "faggot." When an editor attempted to change the word to "gay" Wikipedia's anti-vandalism robot changed it back. An editor replaced his photo with a poster for "Gay N-word". After the page drew criticism on the Huffington Post, Wikipedia locked the page to editing and the changes have been hidden from public view. The article on the 2012-13 Washington Wizards season had similar problems.

10. In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist John Seigenthaler Sr., contacted Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Instead of correcting the false allegations that Seigenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wiki drama with attacks on Seigenthaler for trying to defend his own good name.

you are a brave, brave man for accepting this debate...

Rule #4 shows incredible bias. It is allowed, certainly, in practice, but as a rule, particularly on this subject, it is limiting. Should I trust, rather, a source that says, "I am the husband of Joe Biden," "I'm Joe Biden, and I'm running for the United States Senate," and the ever popular, "I will beat Joe Biden." That "testimony or opinion must never be mistaken for reliable evidence." Yes, that's limiting, too, isn't it? Oh, well.

Finally someone took this debate. I'm excited to see how this one turns out

There's a certain level of fact checking beyond which nobody's perfect but all fellow sources generally agree because the facts have been checked. Wikipedia is uniquely vulnerable to irresponsible updates but that source is also unattached to any other corporate interest which can't be said for many other sources. For Breaking News, I generally don't trust a story until APNews runs it. They are vigorous about corrections and they tend to break news more cautiously then any other source.

I'd argue that Wikipedia is more reliable than ALL news