Credible sources are always a topic for debate. What is a credible source and what is not a credible source. By definition, credible means “offering reasonable grounds for being believed.” ("Merriam-Webster", 2011) Therefore a credible source is information that is true and believable. One of the sources that we discussed and debated in class is Wikipedia. “Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia.......” "Wikipedia:general Disclaimer" (2011) So what about Wikipedia does or does not make it a credible source. Below I will discuss the debate outcomes, the arguments between both sides, and my reasoning for choosing the against side. An argument was developed based on debate outcomes
Based on the debate outcomes from the group, there were many good points in reasoning why Wikipedia is or is not a credible source. The group came up with approximately 26 points that were either against or for Wikipedia being a credible source. The debate was very active leaving everyone a good foundation on what each person thought about the topic. The four steps for presenting arguments fairly were used to develop the argument Each person has their opinion on what they feel about the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia. Some believed that Wikipedia is not a reliable source because anyone can create an account and update information whereas others may think that to be a positive aspect. They feel because anyone can create an account, this gives the opportunity for groups to come together (especially those that are very knowledgeable) and this in turn will develop a common resource of knowledge to be credible. Some will argue that Wikipedia is not reliable because it is not peered reviewed, but then some would say that Wikipedia is backed up with references at the end of the page which links to reliable information. There is an agreement between both sides that Wikipedia can be used as a quick informational page to gain some insight...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document