Wikipedia = empowered ignorance, we need a debate site from which truth arises

[Kriminal99]

The fundamental concepts on which wikipedia is based are well known logical fallacies. Bandwagon fallacy, and Appeal to authority fallacy. How does Wikipedia respond to this fact? By attempting to redefine the meanings of the above fallacies.

To be fair, in an ideal situation Wikipedia could be capable of avoiding these fallacies. Even though it would defer it's explanations to "authoritative sources" it would present the reasoning from those sources directly instead of making a claim as simple minded as "well Authority X believes it so it must be true". It would then also maintain it's neutral point of view, such that one authority per point of view would be presented.

Even in this ideal case, a debate oriented site has an important advantage over Wikipedia. If you had a wondrous revelation of truth, the kind that would allow you to defeat all current opposing arguments without violating the implied rules of debate (using fallacies), on a debate site you could simply present the new superior argument directly. Anyone who had a unique perspective on a subject could help further the world's current level of understanding.

With Wikipedia, in the ideal case you would first have to publish your arguments somewhere else and then edit the article to include your point of view. In practice however Wikipedia is much worse. The neutral point of view argument fails horribly as moderator status trolls and associates revert any edits that disagree with their viewpoints, misquoting rules as justification. If they don't agree with it, it isn't supported enough or well known enough to be presented on wikipedia.

Objective truth is the current result of a continuing conflict between opposing ideas. Many ideas can be proven from commonly accepted premises using solely deductive reasoning. Such arguments do not need any "reference" at all. You simply read them with an open mind, and you are convinced. If you mean to discredit such an idea, you must read it in order to create a counterargument (thus creating a situation where you must accept it if it is true and you cannot find such a counterargument)

[Donk]

An encyclopedia isn't a platform for new ideas, it's a codification of existing knowledge - the Authoritative Bandwagon as it stands on publication date. Ever tried submitting an article to Encyclopedia Britannica?

Wiki is different: it's a long way from being 100% accurate, but it's still a good first port of call for people wanting to find stuff out. It's a giant free resource for the human race, and we'd all be poorer without it.

Sometimes it seems as if the whole of the internet is debate sites, but there's only one Wikipedia. I'd stick with the motto: don't try to fix it in case you break it.

[alexander]

I'm just waiting for a google app that will generate random Wiki articles on random topics, to expand our knowledge, but i mean somehow keep them scientific and real and easy to read and whatnot

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Kriminal37

...With Wikipedia, in the ideal case you would first have to publish your arguments somewhere else and then edit the article to include your point of view. In practice however Wikipedia is much worse. The neutral point of view argument fails horribly as moderator status trolls and associates revert any edits that disagree with their viewpoints, misquoting rules as justification. If they don't agree with it, it isn't supported enough or well known enough to be presented on wikipedia. ...

charlie rose did an interview recently with the wiki co-founder and he said they have implemented new editing policies. here's a starter article until i find the interview.


Top News - Will Wikipedia's new rules garner more trust?

Originally Posted by Dennis Carter

Will Wikipedia's new rules garner more trust?
Online encyclopedia introduced new editing policies recently, and some say the site is becoming a valid source for students....

edit: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10577

[jab2]

Why is Wikipedia always under attack by a small group of people, who mostly have nothing to provide in it's place.

The school my nice attend does not allow them to use Wikipedia as source for projects. My question as to why, was answered that because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone who so wishes, the information is not trustworthy. Yet that same school have no problem if my nice quote from Stan, The Man, the corner mechanics' site where he give a totally biased explanation against evolution. A large portion of the info on the web are supplied by non-experts, and that is the base of maybe 90% of our current accessible knowledge. At least most Wikipedia articles do some cross referencing where one can compare different sources. It can teach you the basis behind doing research for a project, how to check and verify, how to cross reference, etc, but no, because it is written by lay people, mind, a large portion of which has a vast knowledge on their subject, it is not exceptable as a source of