Instigator / Pro
12
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2568

WiKiPEDIA's FEATURED ARTICLES are MORE RELIABLE SOURCES for INFORMATION than MAJORITY OF NEWS SOURCES in US

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2

After 3 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
20
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

A trickier version of Oromagi's debate.

Copied from Oromagi:

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

FEATURED ARTICLES are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed as featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style, according to our featured article criteria. There are 5,871 featured articles out of 6,181,203 articles on the English Wikipedia (about 0.1% or one out of every 1,050 articles). Articles that no longer meet the criteria can be proposed for improvement or removal at featured article review.

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

NEWS is "A publication or broadcast program that provides news and feature stories to the public through various distribution channels. Media outlets include newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and the Internet." This doesn't include amateurs.

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

-->
@MisterChris

Thank you for voting

Thank you for voting.

Sourcws cited in round 2
Bill Wortman, Joe DeSimone, Frank Bensley, et al, CSSBB Primer, Quality Council of Indiana, 2009. The definitive ASQ-certification body of knowledge in Six Sigma.
i https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a
ii https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.019376
iii https://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/trust-and-accuracy/
iv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources
v https://www.tfes.org/
vi https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/24/flat-earth-what-would-happen/
vii https://www.unlv.edu/news/release/round-earth-clues-how-science-proves-our-home-globe

-->
@seldiora

Alex Jones was but that's a rare case.

-->
@RationalMadman

it has to be a publication or broadcast program, neither of which a conspiracy theorist is capable (not that I know of)

-->
@seldiora

A random conspiracy theorist is a news provider via his/her website and/or radio station/tv-program. Are you including amateurs?