Debate: Is Wikipedia valuable?
(List of links)< Debate: Is Wikipedia valuable?
The following pages link to Debate: Is Wikipedia valuable?:View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).
- Featured Debate Digest articles
- Argument: Wikis cannot possibly be 100% reliable if anyone can edit them.
- Argument: Most people only write reliable facts when editing wikis
- Argument: Wikipedia is equally accurate and reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica
- Argument: Wikipedia suffers from a liberal bias
- Argument: Wikipedia falls prey to libel and character assassination
- Argument: Wikipedia's anti-elitism has damaged its quality and credibility
- Argument: No encyclopedia (including Wikipedia) is a reliable primary source
- Argument: Anonymity on Wikipedia is an important privacy protection
- Argument: User identity is impossible to enforce on the Internet
- Argument: Anonymous abuses on Wikipedia are checked by a loyal community
- Argument: Wikipedia's consensus model results in loud, persistent voices dominating
- Argument: Nature's study of Wikipedia and Britannica was poorly conducted
- Argument: Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias; disproportionate coverage
- Argument: Corrections are made and vandalism are reverted very rapidly on Wikipedia
- Argument: Wikipedia is cultish and repels minority points of view
- Argument: Wikipedia's openness prevents it from winning public trust like Britannica
- Argument: Wikipedia is generally unreliable
- Argument: Wikipedia lacks the important process of peer-review
- Argument: Wikipedia should have a peer review process before edits are accepted
- Argument: The quality of Wikipedia articles does not always improve over-time
- Argument: Wikipedia cannot succeed with information as Linux succeeded with software
- Argument: Nature's study showed Wikipedia to be 31% less accurate than Britannica
- Argument: Wikipedia opens discussion on "truth"; Britannica closes it
- Argument: Wikipedia's collectivism produces mediocre information
- Argument: Wikipedia is not an authoritative "encyclopedia"
- Argument: Wikipedia is online and interactive, unlike other encyclopedias
- Argument: Less significant articles on Wikipedia don't hamper serious ones
- Argument: Many vandalisms on Wikipedia are not corrected for months
- Argument: Wikipedia's NPOV policies contradict inherently opposing views