The information that Wikipedia provides is overall more reliable than information provided by Fox News
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The more precise version of Oromagi’s debate. Is it still winnable? Will Fruit Inspector destroy me?
Reliable means trustworthy.
For anyone who knows Wiki, it warns users that it is not entirely reliable. For anyone who knows academic research, they know even the best studies admit there is more work to be done. Their research may be disproved if another perspective tackles on. So at least Wiki is similar to true research standards. But you ask, how do we fix this problem? With time, and the addition of further studies (or in this case, features) that improve the solution. The article was written back from 2011, and even now it still tells the same message. The apparent paradox is resolved in that, they are humbly admitting they are not up to encyclopedic standards but are still reliable overall. The combination of editorial overlook that Wiki vouches for, along with complementary websites, resolves the problems presented by the editing, even if some remain. Let me explain.
Solution: Internet Archive. Wiki has known that due to edits, it can be difficult to determine which version of Wiki is trustworthy. Well, fear no more. A news article introduces how the well-minded people discuss with each other and talk over the actual edits of Wiki. The previous versions can definitively be looked over by scholars and experts and agreed to be relatively consistent, and pinned onto the web archive for eternity, where it can never be edited. The verification of information now resolves the major problem of Wiki (that new edits may discredit old ones), while keeping all the good (people worked together in a collaborative effort to build the article). The seeming unreliability that wiki admits, is only temporary (with bad edits lasting max of one hour), while the ending result can be seen for all people to verify and check upon.
2) Wiki VS Fox
Wiki has established standards for verifiability, with numerous guidelines on trustworthy sources. They admit that the tertiary sources are dangerous to use within terms of research. But this is not about using Wiki. This is about the information provided by wiki. It is well known that Wiki's owner himself has established the standard for fact-checking, encouraging journalists and news reporters alike to do the same. The news article admits, "While this transparency is most often a tool for Wikipedia editors to keep an eye on efforts to influence content or introduce bias, it also serves as a powerful accountability mechanism". As a result of this, Wiki has managed to gain 80% accuracy in a study, even if true Encyclopedias reach 90~95% (explaining why, by Encyclopedic standard, Wiki would not be as reliable).
Just as Wiki corrects its mistakes, Fox's lack thereof is the crux of the problem. By analyzing the false news story and who is fired, it's concluded that Fox News is nowhere near reliable (as false stories are not taken down). The fact that news articles are viewed by so many people, with little chance of regret, brings Fox to the law court, especially as the responsibility is higher. Judges have deemed Fox News writers to be unreliable. Even now, Fox has not fixed its problem, with NY Times highlighting its incorrect information about COVID-19. A news critic has analyzed Fox News over a long period, and even he could only say that it was based on opinion rather than actual news and facts.
It's just like Oromagi said. Fox has Right bias and Mixed fact reporting. Wiki is mostly factual and has nearly no bias. The fact that Fox news has less than 1/3 people who trust it should be a red flag to voters. The 67% of trust in Wikipedia goes to show that it is at least twice as reliable to the people.
As you can see, even though you cannot use Wiki as a source in research (due to the standard of academia), the information provided is more trustworthy in Wiki. Many editors watch articles with a hawk eye, limiting biased and untrustworthy information. Wiki's "misinformation" has not even reached the news many times, unlike Fox. And Web Archive resolves the major flaw of editors combating against each other. Wiki encourages you to make each article more accurate, and check up on each other, despite anonymity. In contrast, Fox fails to fire its workers, despite knowing who wrote what, and which may be biased. The ignorance and failure to act results in more unreliable info from Fox overall.
Now onto Con.
For anyone who knows Wiki, it warns users that it is not entirely reliable.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
However, 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 (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE).
The article was written back from 2011, and even now it still tells the same message. The apparent paradox is resolved in that, they are humbly admitting they are not up to encyclopedic standards but are still reliable overall.
Solution: Internet Archive.
Wiki has established standards for verifiability, with numerous guidelines on trustworthy sources.
As a result of this, Wiki has managed to gain 80% accuracy in a study, even if true Encyclopedias reach 90~95% (explaining why, by Encyclopedic standard, Wiki would not be as reliable).
Just as Wiki corrects its mistakes, Fox's lack thereof is the crux of the problem....
The fact that Fox news has less than 1/3 people who trust it should be a red flag to voters. The 67% of trust in Wikipedia goes to show that it is at least twice as reliable to the people.
As you can see, even though you cannot use Wiki as a source in research (due to the standard of academia), the information provided is more trustworthy in Wiki.
Once again, though wiki says itself it cannot be used as a reliable source of information in any case, this doesn’t not mean the information is unreliable.
My opponent argues that the information Wikipedia provides, which is not to be confused as Wikipedia the source, is "overall more reliable" than that of FOX NEWS.
I have already conceded that the tertiary nature of wiki makes it volatile. I need not give a precise number that measures exactly how trustworthy wiki is. It only has to be more reliable.
Once again, though wiki says itself it cannot be used as a reliable source of information in any case, this doesn’t not mean the information is unreliable.
Con says that accuracy and bias cannot tell us who is more true.
He has failed to give us another basis for reasoning. Academic research is the most trusted ideas possible other than axioms. Such research is accurate and has no bias. (All competing interest and lack of comprehensive nature must be stated).
Because wiki explains its standards, reasons that journalists must fact check, this is clearly more trustworthy than a site that fails to take down fake news and does not fire the people who are responsible for such.
Con thinks that the people cannot decide who is more trustworthy.
Because trust is a subjective measure we can only use the people's own ideas and behaviors to truly measure trust overall.
Even Harvard University has an experiment which measured trust as an idea.
Because more accurate and less biased information is more consistent with the truth, it is more trustworthy.
Even though wiki has a lot of edits that have gone by, the millions of articles means that the average random wiki article would likely go unnoticed compared to Fox which made the news.
And so the Fox News' unreliability shown with fake news and failure to take responsibility leads to untrustworthiness.
It is well known that transparency is inherently related to trust.
Therefore, Wiki, which has its standards laid out carefully, its CEO speaking out for fact checking, while Fox does no such thing, and has less trust from audience.
Con provides much more sources --> point to con
The arguments basically can point to Con as he successfully rebuttal all and basically Pro didn't do rebuttal --> point to pro
spelling same
Grammar same
Conduct same
First I will say that I did not enjoy the read of this debate any more than I did the earlier fanfare/debate involving Oromagi and Fruit_Inspector [I will not weigh-in on my own debate with seldiora relating to this topic] for the simple reason that these debates pit one entity [Wiki] against another entity [FoxNews] which do not share objective existence and purpose. At all. To claim that they both distribute information is about as relative as claiming that both dragonflies and helicopters fly. So what? Therefore, I find the attempted comparison absurd. That said, I can still present an unbiased vote, in spite of my personal disdain for Wiki, and my growing disdain for FoxNews. I judge on the merits of the arguments, as I should; let these other concerns be damned.
Argument: Pro presented the evidence that Wiki has a low opinion of its own reliability, the measuring stick of this debate, and concludes that Wiki is not reliable. Pro attempts to explain that the Wiki statement, being 9 years old, for one, makes it a subjective, loose statement. Con successfully argues that the syntax of the Wiki statement is "absolute." This matter is argued through the balance of rounds, but Pro never successfully overcomes the Con rebuttal. Con is correct; the Wiki statement on their reliability is absolute and objective. Con's only BoP was to show that Wiki is not reliable by academic definition, and succeeds, and the presence of FoxNews in the debate seems relatively dismissive. Con also successfully argues that Wiki's method of verifiability does not meet academic standards, made worse because Wiki does not even reveal the names of "editors" in order to be independently verified by third-party observation. Con successfully argues that with that verification, Wiki's reliability remains suspect. Points to Con
Sources: In R3, Pro states, with a source, that "transparency is inherently related to trust," but Con has already defeated the point in R2 be declaring ands citing the many many instances of fraudulent and just plain wrong information on Wiki, which slays the transparency/trust relation relative to Wiki. Points to Con
S&G: tie
Conduct: tie.
Thanks for voting.
Once I'm done with my Blitzkrieg, I'll see.
wanna try voting? It's not really philosophy, but it's pretty logical.
*bump*
"I guess the premise is too difficult to prove as is. I need a more stringent topic to win my side."
Yeah, you do. Reliability is far too abstract. Without outlining the exact metric on which you choose to make the comparison, the substantiation of your position becomes that more difficult.
I guess the premise is too difficult to prove as is. I need a more stringent topic to win my side.
What did you think?
I know. And I'll make sure to highlight that distinction.
thanks. Hopefully, you won't be able to trash me in Fruit's argument that wiki is not a reliable source of information at all, relative to research. Providing information is subtly different from being a source of information.
Good argument. I'll address the argument some time later tonight, or some time later tomorrow.