User:WPholic/Rebuttals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My class at school is pretty much divided into three categories: the pro-wiki, the neutral and the anti-wiki. While this is probably due to the community of Wikipediholics at school screaming "WIKIPEDIA!" too much, dismissing all the objections raised by the anti-wikis (not ALL of which involve screaming Wikipediholics or Wikipedia-induced insanity) only undermines our argument. While I realise that Wikipedia already has a page devoted to rebutting objections against Wikipedia, I will summon up all my debating energy and type my favourite rebuttals here (mainly from a Social Studies debate about Wikipedia)! *summoning up debating energy* I LOVE DEBATES!! --WPholic [ talk ] 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is unreliable.

Proponents of such statements should examine reality before saying such things. While of course there ARE inaccuracies in Wikipedia, studies have shown Wikipedia to be nearly as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica, with only one more serious error than Britannica per scientific article (if I remember correctly). Sure, there were far more minor errors (31 more, if I'm not wrong). But Britannica is far more established and perceived as far more authoritative. Errors in Britannica are therefore far more likely to be taken as correct than those in Wikipedia, of which many people are still skeptical. Besides, no one serious about their research should depend on one website alone, whether Britannica or Wikipedia. Anyway, errors in Wikipedia are generally corrected far more quickly than those on Britannica, which are sometimes even corrected by Wikipedia. Besides, nobody complains that Britannica's inaccurate.

• Wikipedia can never be authoritative. Its claim to be an encyclopedia is therefore fundamentally misleading. "Reference website" maybe.

Wikipedia is intended as a starting point for research. Besides, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's why it's called WIKIPEDIA, for goodness' sake. Look at the featured articles. Look at the good articles. In fact, look at any article. It provides information, doesn't it? The majority of the articles provide useful information, don't they? No one looking at the sheer magnitude of Wikipedia's success can reasonably say that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.

• Wikipedia violates copyright laws.

Wikipedia has policies against copyright violations (sorry, can't remember the wikilink). Pages violating these policies are taken care of, and their creators and/or contributors are notified. (Sorry, I like the boldface too much.) For those who claim that Wikipedia is incapable of enforcing these policies effectively, tell me how to come up with a law that nobody will break. Unless you use some mind-control technology, or unless you come up with something blindingly obvious (which people will try to violate anyway, just for the fun of it), it is IMPOSSIBLE.