<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Wikipedia a reliable source for credible information?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.debateitout.com/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source-for-credible-information.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.debateitout.com/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source-for-credible-information.html</link>
	<description>Debate online with people!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:12:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Tran</title>
		<link>http://www.debateitout.com/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source-for-credible-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-7723</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Tran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.debateitout.com/?p=1408#comment-7723</guid>
		<description>I could make an account and edit anything I want in 5 minutes, and as long as it sounds like it could be right, they aren&#039;t going to second guess it. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I could make an account and edit anything I want in 5 minutes, and as long as it sounds like it could be right, they aren&#039;t going to second guess it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NatetheGrate</title>
		<link>http://www.debateitout.com/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source-for-credible-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-5285</link>
		<dc:creator>NatetheGrate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.debateitout.com/?p=1408#comment-5285</guid>
		<description>Of course not. When Wikipedia is right, which it is most of the time, it&#039;s just fortunate. Facts are not something we should be voting on. If there are mistakes on Wikipedia, and there certainly are, they stay up until someone corrects them. This is not how a reliable site would operate.   </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course not. When Wikipedia is right, which it is most of the time, it&#039;s just fortunate. Facts are not something we should be voting on. If there are mistakes on Wikipedia, and there certainly are, they stay up until someone corrects them. This is not how a reliable site would operate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jared</title>
		<link>http://www.debateitout.com/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source-for-credible-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-5276</link>
		<dc:creator>Jared</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:03:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.debateitout.com/?p=1408#comment-5276</guid>
		<description>Not really misty. It&#039;s very hard these days to edit something. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not really misty. It&#039;s very hard these days to edit something.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: misty</title>
		<link>http://www.debateitout.com/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source-for-credible-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-5273</link>
		<dc:creator>misty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:14:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.debateitout.com/?p=1408#comment-5273</guid>
		<description>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..........that being said i feel it is not bc any tom dick or harry can edit it </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.that being said i feel it is not bc any tom dick or harry can edit it</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Clunn</title>
		<link>http://www.debateitout.com/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source-for-credible-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-5229</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Clunn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:59:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.debateitout.com/?p=1408#comment-5229</guid>
		<description>Here read this 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://newsbusters.org/node/5043&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/5043&lt;/a&gt; </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here read this<br />
<a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/5043" target="_blank">http://newsbusters.org/node/5043</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jared</title>
		<link>http://www.debateitout.com/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source-for-credible-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-5227</link>
		<dc:creator>Jared</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:02:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.debateitout.com/?p=1408#comment-5227</guid>
		<description>No way, show me one article that is. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No way, show me one article that is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Clunn</title>
		<link>http://www.debateitout.com/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source-for-credible-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-5223</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Clunn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:16:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.debateitout.com/?p=1408#comment-5223</guid>
		<description>Only for general info.  There&#039;s as much of a political bias to Wikipedia as there is in Conservapedia, and it&#039;s a natural result of who updates them. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Only for general info.  There&#039;s as much of a political bias to Wikipedia as there is in Conservapedia, and it&#039;s a natural result of who updates them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://www.debateitout.com/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source-for-credible-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-5222</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:47:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.debateitout.com/?p=1408#comment-5222</guid>
		<description>British scientists who work for Nature Magazine have determined that wikipedia is more accurate when it comes to science than an actual encyclopedia </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>British scientists who work for Nature Magazine have determined that wikipedia is more accurate when it comes to science than an actual encyclopedia</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Liberty</title>
		<link>http://www.debateitout.com/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source-for-credible-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-5209</link>
		<dc:creator>Liberty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:51:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.debateitout.com/?p=1408#comment-5209</guid>
		<description>Depends on who edited it last. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Depends on who edited it last.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Liberaltarian91</title>
		<link>http://www.debateitout.com/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source-for-credible-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-5206</link>
		<dc:creator>Liberaltarian91</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:23:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.debateitout.com/?p=1408#comment-5206</guid>
		<description>I would say Wikipedia is reliable 90% of the time, like many websites.  And like most websites, you are not supposed to assume everything written on their as truth, and you are supposed to pick and choose what is the truth.  While a user-edited encyclopedia can lead to vandalism, most of the time it regulates itself perfectly, and since it is user-edited, naturally, it explains the good, as well as the criticism, about any person, event, or idea.   
 
Although Wikipedia isn&#039;t a website you can cite to a research paper, it is an overall reliable source of information, for people who are interested in true knowledge, rather than a grade.  Of course, there are websites and books which go into topics in more depth, Wikipedia is a great website for a person to get their feet wet in five minutes.   </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would say Wikipedia is reliable 90% of the time, like many websites.  And like most websites, you are not supposed to assume everything written on their as truth, and you are supposed to pick and choose what is the truth.  While a user-edited encyclopedia can lead to vandalism, most of the time it regulates itself perfectly, and since it is user-edited, naturally, it explains the good, as well as the criticism, about any person, event, or idea.   </p>
<p>Although Wikipedia isn&#039;t a website you can cite to a research paper, it is an overall reliable source of information, for people who are interested in true knowledge, rather than a grade.  Of course, there are websites and books which go into topics in more depth, Wikipedia is a great website for a person to get their feet wet in five minutes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

