His Wikipedia entry stated: "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." And: "John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."
Seigenthaler noticed that his "biography" was altered on 26 May 2005. On 29 May, one of the site's moderators edited it only by correcting the misspelling of the word "early" but did not check the other, much more serious, alterations. For four months, Wikipedia depicted him as a suspected assassin...
My opponents rants will be addressed in my second post. Allow me to first present my opening.
02:20, 26 May 2003 Kchishol1970 (Talk | contribs) (Added the allegations about Lynch story being distorted into a propaganda exercise)
In April 2005, the Federal Communications Commission warned television stations that they could be fined for airing news stories provided by the government and by companies without disclosing who made them .
In May 2006, FCC chairman Kevin Martin ordered a review of airing of VNRs by television stations, following the April 2006 report by the Center for Media and Democracy.
In August 2006, the FCC mailed letters to the owners of 77 television stations, asking for information regarding agreements between the stations and the creators of VNRs. The letters also asked whether there was any "consideration" given to the stations in return for airing the material. Stations have been given 60 days to respond
my opponent's position drips with elitist contempt for humanity
Andrew Keen is aging, wrinkled, ugly, British, and he hates puppies.
He (Sky) admits that he uses it (Wiki) himself.
Wikipedia told the truth while NBC literally created a work of fiction
What Fox News does...
no one vetted his credentials and when his claim to be a tenured professor of religion at a private university was accepted
"As a result of the controversy, Wikipedia users began a review of Essjay's previous edits and discovered evidence he had relied upon his fictional professorship to influence editorial consideration of edits he made. 'People have gone through his edits and found places where he was basically cashing in on his fake credentials to bolster his arguments,
So a private individual can go on wikipedia and commit a crime despite the best efforts of wikipedia to stop them. Let's close wikipedia.Let's also close all of our university campuses
So again, wikipedia has an advantage (re: covert advertising)
Just because other media are guilty of similar errors or faults does not make it OK on Wikipedia. And all in all it certainly does not prove that Wikipedia hardly has disadvantages
This entire effect is turning Wikipedia into a generator of spam. It is primarily Google's fault
The Vagabond is pretending that this Debate is about "Internet vs. Old Media"...which it isnt. Its about Wikipedias Pros and Cons.
Judges, Readers, Opponent: Are incidents such as this more likely to happen on NBC, The Washington Post or Wikipedia?
Even the printed press got hold of his (Essjay's) name and praised him as genuine.
I started with a list of 16,750 Wikipedia articles. They came from a partial list of Wikipedia biographies of persons born before 1890. There was no reason for this, other than the fact that the list was available and the size was manageable.
I found plagiarism in about one percent of those I examined.
Actually no. Its much more difficult to detect product-placement and covert advertising on Wikipedia. I know this because I've utilized this weakness before and felt ashamed in doing so.
Myself, Im a writer of books and one of the simplest exercises in product-placement would be to edit my books into the "Reference Lists" of all the subjects and topics it matches.
Taner Akçam, a Turkish historian and writer. Akçam faces prosecution in Turkey for writing about the Armenian genocide. However, due to the vandalising of Akçam's Wikipedia entry, which accused him of being a member of a terrorist group, he was detained by Canadian border police on 17 February 2007.
Akçam was detained yet again – for another hour – by US Homeland Security
My opponent bases his defense on the term "far outweigh" in both of his posts so far. He has offered no definition of that standard.
requires a comparison and contrast of wikipedia's advantages and disadvantages with those of other information sources.
My opponent asks whether online research begins with Google or Wikipedia.
(quoted) This entire effect is turning Wikipedia into a generator of spam
wikipedia's advantages as an internet site outweigh the average in that category
The answer may surprise you, especially since it came from my opponent (referring to the printed press picking up on Essjays story)
No, John Gray, despite the fact that he has no real education and has been widely dismissed in his field for hocking chauvanistic generalities in lieu of valid relationship advice, can still boast coverage from noteworthy media
Question 1. Does 0.8 = 2?
No facts or figures, no rationale, just some guy online coming at you with "Because I say so"
I think, no.
The project aims to improve on the Wikipedia model by providing a "reliable" encyclopedia
A further development of Wikipedia's already existing "protected" status...
In Mid-Debate my opponent concedes that wikipedia would have to improve its protection from disinfo and vandalism.
SQ2: Do you agree that the Creation of "alternative-Wikipedia" such as "The Red Pill" or "Citizendium" speaks volumes about the weaknesses of Wikipedia?
SQ3: Would you say that in the case of book-format Encyclopedias it is known who edited the book?
SQ4: Do you agree that, for scientific research, Citizendum is more credible than Wikipedia?
"Many educators agree ... that Wikipedia is a valuable place to start research, but should not be treated as an authoritative source."
"But even then it takes a lot of practice to recognize when an entry might be more or less reliable."
"By centralizing history, we've made its modification by those who would control us easier, not harder."
"...announced a policy last week forbidding students from citing Wikipedia articles in research papers."
much less his repeated omissions from quotes by me which dramatically changed the meanings of the quotes?
It might be helpful when reading this debate to actually compare the things that my opponent says with the things that I said and the things his sources said. It should prove enlightening.
And need I even make further mention of my opponent's source that misrepresented the results of a basic math equasion, and my opponent's attempt to defend the idea that a result of 0.8 can magically become 2
My opponent claims that after loading one side of the scale with disadvantages that there is no need for him to establish any limitation on the advantages of wikipedia, because no amount of advantage could far exceed the disadvantages. In order for this to be accurate, the disadvantages must be infinite. In short, to prove that the balance lies in our favor, each of us must seek both to establish a lower limit to the weight of our side of the scale, AND an upper limit for the weight of our opponents side, in order to prove the preponderance of points on our side.
Wikipedia didn't arrest him. Wikipedia doesn't even carry handcuffs.
SQ 1. Does Wikipedia have any responsibility to restrain the US and Canadian governments from arresting people based on gossip?
SQ 2. Do the advantages of literacy far outweigh the disadvantages of literacy?
No I do not.
If wikipedia is a well known plagiarists clearing house that gets top google results, there should be literally thousands of authors lining up and bringing successful lawsuits.
A few immature individuals and a few more corrupt ones create a few problems, as is the case with all media, but unlike other media, absolutely anyone can make a FULL review of all changes that have been made, and using wikiscanner can determine the culprits.
On 15 December 2005, various media sources reported that the open-access encyclopaedia Wikipedia was about as accurate as the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, at least for science-based articles. This was the result of a study by the journal Nature, which chose scientific articles from both encyclopaedias across a wide range of topics and sent them for peer review. The reviewers found just eight serious errors. Of those, four came from each site.
SQ1: "Dont trust anyone who hides behind a screenname" - What do you make of that saying?"
SQ2: When looking for a bra as a gift...is Wikipedia your first choice?
SQ3: When researching conspiracies of the CIA...is Wikipedia your first choice?
SQ4: What do you make of WikiScanners findings?
SQ5: When looking for conspiracy-info on the JFK-Assassination, who would you place more trust in - a guy called anon1318cz or a guy called Jim Marrs?
Do you believe in the internet? Do you believe in freedom of information? Do you believe in transparency in the media and in democracy?
Oh, about the advantages of literacy outweighing the disadvantages: you're going to have to take my word for it. I tried to ask my opponent but he didn't answer
Debate topic. Wikipedia benefits far outweigh disadvantages.
Vagabond's position - yes, they do.
Sky's position - no, they don't.
Vagabond starts out arguing elitism vs. open source.
They do not believe that among so many voices, the wheat can be adequately separated from the chaff
It's as though he's predetermining Sky's stance rather than arguing his own. It's rambling and doesn't really address the advantages. Maybe he thinks they're self-evident, but he never says so.
Sky's approach is more to the point. He summarizes the disadvantages.
His points are persuasively argued.
His Socratic points are well-thought out.
Opening round goes to Sky.
Vagabond again resorts to rambling against his opponent while not addressing the issue.
He ends up supporting the wrong thing, i.e. the advantages of free text on the Internet. It doesn't really support or refute the debate topic.
Sky opens with another on-topic position, refuting the opponent’s claims, though rambling that Vagabond's points are.
Sky nails the issues with this comment.
Conclusion: The Vagabond is pretending that this Debate is about "Internet vs. Old Media"...which it isn’t. Its about Wikipedia’s Pros and Cons
Round 2 to Sky
Vagabond starts by making claims that, to me, Sky did not assert. The first mention of 'Google' is in Vagabond's post. Sky did not make those claims, though Vagabond says he did.
Once again Vagabond seems to ramble, arguing more by emotion and bluster than by taking on point-by-point, even to the extreme of making claims his opponent didn't make.
Sky comes back with sources and commentary, again on topic about the use of Wikiscanner.
Disinformation is a menace to society and Wikipedia offers an easy-to-use platform for just that. Still think Wikipedia[s advantages far outweigh its disadvantages?
Sky also nails it with this comment:
If we follow my opponents Debate-Strategy up to now, we can predict that he will be citing examples in which similar happened in regular or other media. So again:
***Other Media having similar problems does not excuse Wikipedia. It instead proves that Wikipedia is not the vanguard of "freedom" most people are led to believe it is***
Vagabond comes back with an unconvincing counter.
Sky opens next with a good quote from Universities, prohibiting the use of Wiki in research papers; quite apropos.
He also gives a good summary of the disadvantages.
But with those benefits comes a seductive lure...the tendency to use it all the time, the tendency to become lazy, the tendency to aggrandize and glamorize its benefits, the tendency to exaggerate its authority.
Vagabond gets off track again being lured into arguing identity theft. His opponent is dictating his argument and he is no longer debating the subject.
As a joke he makes this ad hominem comment:
I think it means that we should distrust a guy named skyfloating. PS, call me Tom.
Not very funny and doesn't add to his credibility and a waste of his character count.
Sky's conclusion and summary is very well done and eclipses his opponent's rambling and mostly off-topic commentary. It's as though Vagabond is thinking the case argues itself. It doesn't.
To me Sky is the clear winner, mainly because he stayed on course, argued the subject and did not ramble into misplaced attempts at humor. He ran the course of his side of the debate.
Vagabond made few cogent points, did not support his side of the case and his conclusion was feeble.
Winner, hands down, is Skyfloating.
The entire debate was an incredible match up of two incredible fighters and there was no disappointment. The back and forth was spot on and I finished each rebuttal agreeing with the fighter who wrote it. There was almost no real flaw in either presentation.
That said, I have to give this to The Vagabond on the slimmest of margins and based on the ethiopa example. He implicitly showed that wikipedia can be used for real world analysis to a fair degree of accuracy. I would have liked to see Skyfloating address this issue as it is an important one. If an accurate picture can be constructed despite all of the disadvantages shown by Skyfloating then how can they be truly detrimental?
On such a small distinction this debate is based on in this judges opinion and that is a tribute to both Fighters. An incredible job on both sides.
This debate was quite difficult to analyse. Both advocates utilised tactics and arguments that occasionally obscured the points presented. Given the match of abilities shown, attempted obfuscation, style and skewing of the topic will be disregarded. I will apply my own choice of definition to the topic phrasing of "far outweigh", and that is "to a considerable degree; very much".
My round-by-round scoring, based on the value of evidence and substantial argument, is as follows:
The Vagabond incurred a small point deduction in the First Reply for a non-responsive answer to Skyfloating's Socratic Question #4, which was based on a hypothetical situation.
- Opening Statement:
- The Vagabond: 2.0, Skyfloating: 1.5
- First Reply:
- The Vagabond: 3.0, Skyfloating: 2.0
- Second Reply:
- The Vagabond: 3.0, Skyfloating: 3.0
- Third Reply:
- The Vagabond: 4.0, Skyfloating: 4.5
- Closing Statement:
- The Vagabond: 3.0, Skyfloating: 1.5
- The Vagabond: 15.0, Skyfloating: 12.5
In explaining my consideration of evidence, here are some highlights from my flow notes:
- Pro: WP contribution is democratic, allowing access to experts that traditional media does not
- Con: WP user 'Essjay' falsified credentials and even gained management authority
- Pro: The printed press was no less susceptible to considering 'Essjay' an expert
- Pro: John Gray is still incorrectly accredited by the mainstream media
- Con: WP contributions contain some amount of plagiarised text
- Pro: Plagiarism study may be non-representative of WP as a whole
- Pro: No evidence of plagiarism lawsuits has been presented
- Con: WP's structure make it difficult to sue for plagiarism
- Con: Ease of copying of unverified information from WP hurts other media
- Pro: Anonymous sources might enable WP to more accessibly report 'dangerous' information
- Con: Accountability ensures reliable information, not anonymity
- Pro: WP is easy for the public to access
- Con: WP's easy of access encourages laziness of thought and cursory research (subjective evidence)
- Pro: Public libraries are also free and not difficult to access
- Con: WP is susceptible to spam, enabled by another new-media resource: Google Search
- Con: Banning of WP citation from academic papers supports argument that it encourages laziness
- Pro: Some WP faults are human faults, eg laziness and trust
- Con: WP is easily vandalised
- Con: Errors on WP remain mirrored across various websites, even when corrected
- Con: WP contributor falsely accused Akçam of terrorism
- Pro: Actions against Akçam are the fault of government deficiencies, not WP
- Con: WP has shown bias in Rennes-le-Chateu edits, 9/11 page removal
- Con: WP founder Sanger does not consider WP "reliable"
- Pro: Offered alternatives to WP are also Wiki-based sites
- Pro: Sanger's "reliable alternative" has less than 1% of WP's information volume
- Con: With regard to Citizendum, volume does not equate to value
- Con: Centralisation of historical information in WP enables easier modification to suit agendas
- Pro: Study indicates WP is about as accurate as Britannica
- Pro: WP edit logs provide more transparency and propaganda resistance than traditional news sources
- Con: The editors of book-form encyclopaedias are disclosed, too
- Pro: WP automated tools allow faster identification of concerted propaganda efforts
- Con: Daily volume of WP contributions makes verification difficult and/or impractical
- Con: WP bibliographies can be easily abused for covert advertising
- Pro: Opponents evidence of WP product-placement is subjective
- Con: Automated WikiScanner is not completely reliable, subject to 'encrypted IP address'
- Pro: Tools like WikiScanner show adaptability of new media such as WP
- Pro: WP uses a distribution medium (Internet) with less cost overhead
- Pro: WP can be used for genuine non-biased advertisement without cost
- Pro: WP offers over a million articles
I would have liked to have seen Skyfloating introduce evidence of less managerial corruption and plagiarism in non-Wikipedia resources. It would have gone a long way to showing a "disadvantage" in contrast to Wikipedia alternatives, were it possible for him to do so.
On points and preponderance of evidence, The Vagabond wins.
I would like to thank both participants, both held their ground equally.
The topic is one I see cropping up more and more, and both of these individuals highlighted nearly every corner one could possibly imagine as far as the pro's and con's of open source information such as Wiki.
That being said..
You did an excellent job bringing the issue before us through reasonable arguments regarding the fundamental purpose and rights to us all for open information.
I think more importantly you demonstrated that not just open source sites like Wiki are flawed, but Main Stream Media is as well, per your examples on Jessica Lynch.
You did a far better job of organizing your posts throughout the debate, clearly laying out your stance in an easy to read and comprehensible fashion.
Your examples where as they say, the nail in the coffin. Each case was used to prove your point, "The Wikipedia Police" and the likes.
All in all, I have to give my thumbs up to Skyfloating, from layout to control of the debate and using your examples to drive your points home, I would have to say you won this debate.
Man, what a tough debate. I’m exhausted from just trying to judge it. And I kept getting lost in there … it was like trying to rate ping pong players on form and style while the ball is moving so fast you can’t even see it.
I’m judging in favor of The Vagabond by a slim margin. Skyfloating sort of shot himself in the foot in the beginning by agreeing that Wiki’s advantages outweigh its disadvantages and then hanging the entire debate on the word “far,” which has a rather subjective definition that he didn't quite pin down, although The Vagabond did and it wasn't effectively refuted.
Also, Skyfloating spent time trying to show us how dangerous Wiki is. The thing is, the Bible does a lot more damage in the wrong hands and we still keep it around. In other words, I’m not sure I agree that Wiki itself can be held responsible for how people misuse and abuse it.
The Vagabond did clearly explain the advantages of Wiki, and I thought that comparing Wiki to other sources of information and media had validity. We can’t throw out ALL the media and information sources just because they all have disadvantages, and The Vagabond pointed out that Wiki’s disadvantages are shared by most of the alternatives.
The Vagabond is a master of rhetoric and persuasion, Skyfloating is a master of organization and logic. Both excel at making their opponent sound like an idiot and/or liar.
Anyway, Vagabond gets the win and that’s all the explanation you’re getting. I need a long hot shower now.