Learning Team C argued the credibility of the heavily overused virtual encyclopedia website named, Wikipedia. For over a decade institutions, professors and scholarly students abroad have criticized the ‘free to write’ site for its disinformation and overall legitimacy. The fundamental differences stem from Wiki’s inability to substantiate their site has the validity and credibility needed to be considered a good source of information. These negative feelings have been symbolically placed at the roots of Wikipedia’s foundation; their authors. The most profound flaw that Wikipedia seems to still embrace today is that every average Joe can edit any page at any time; without any educational, professional, or user credentials required. This research paper will shadow the four steps to fairly presenting an argumentative paper, and how the four steps relate to Learning Team C’s Wikipedia debate. Disposal
Present Both Sides of an Argument Step one in writing a good argument is to introduce both sides of the argument equally. Offering a lopsided production of an argumentative paper would make the paper seem biased or suggest that messy research played a role in the final output. However, if both sides have credible sources that are readily available and the opinions are valid, they should all be represented (Spatt, 2011). The foundation of Learning Team C’s argument is based on Wikipedia’s credibility and how the information is uploaded to their website. Furthermore, Wikipedia permits site users to add new material to any topic within the website. Some members of the Team C felt that additional information this easily added discredited the website in its entirety. However, in arguing for the site, as additional information is uploaded by end users; Wikipedia implemented an advisory board that verifies all newly added material; therefore the board actually credits the information uploaded to the site because someone is governing any new added material. In addition, any incorrect information is removed but the time frame as to when wrong information first appears and when it is removed is still unknown. Another advocacy point for the use of Wikipedia is school children who may not have access or the knowledge for using more credible information such as peer reviewed journals. Furthermore, Wikipedia is certainly a faster way for these school age children to access the help they need to complete their homework. In addition to being faster and more accessible; Wikipedia is also a free site to all users any alternative to Wikipedia could potential apposed financial harm to those individuals who could not afford it.
Provide an Account of the Argument Wikipedia has an abundance of data on countless subjects that is unfortunately deem not credible by the University of Phoenix, its facilitators and instructors. Certain members of the Team C believed that this negative
