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 who debated on the pro side of Wikipedia shot back with “Do you consider Google to be a credible search engine? I contend that if you believe Google to be a credible search engine you have to also conclude Wikipedia is a credible source of information. Google goes to great length to make your search relevant. They rank your results based upon the number of links to a particular source (Garfinkel, 2008, p.84). In the Google search box if you type any noun (person, place, or thing) a Wikipedia article is the first or second result you get. What this means is that these Wikipedia articles have the most links to them than anything else on the internet. A lot of people must feel Wikipedia is credible enough to link to its pages. So while the academic and my fellow team mates on the con side of the table may say Wikipedia is not credible there seems to be enough people that believe it to be credible to make the best search engine on the planet always return a Wikipedia entry if a noun is searched. The question I pose again “Is Google a valid and credible search engine?” Do millions of people that link to Wikipedia that cause it to be the #1 or #2 result for most searches believe the data to be INVALID? I contend that some of...