In this paper I will be discussing the debate between pro Wikipedia’s Dwight Reed, and Rachel R. Wright, and con Wikipedia’s Nicole Irwin, Michelle Douglas, and Ivy Leigh. During the debate between Learning Team B members we debated over different points of views regarding Wikipedia as a reliable source.
Almost everyone knows about Wikipedia. Heck, every time you use a search engine like Google, Wikipedia shows up as a source for information. Nicole Irving on the con side of the debate started out by saying “Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so what makes the information shared by anyone true? If anyone can edit it then people can also edit it to be wrong. Dwight Reed …show more content…
Michelle Douglas also responded to Dwight Reed with Google might be a valid search engine, but what about the instances where you Google the fact that a popular star has just died and the person is alive and well. You can’t believe everything just based on the company supplying the information. Why does the medium of the internet make it a valid source???? Rachel R. Wright pro Wikipedia can back with Wikipedia is definitely not an information source that anyone should “bet the farm on” to be 100% valid but isn’t that or couldn’t that be the case with nay source? For the most part, the general information that you research on Wikipedia, when compared to other more reliable sources, is usually accurate. That being said, there is reason to believe that there is room for being considered credible. Completely valid is another thing, but again, that could be the case with any source as there is always room for error. Dwight Reeds last stitch effort to bring is point home. What make Wikipedia a valid source is the thousands of internet websites that link to the data in Wikipedia causing articles from Google and other search engines to consistently rank Wikipedia articles at the top of result list. Now, it is generally agreed that Wikipedia articles are reliable and useful information (Chesney, 2006). This is