The information that Wikipedia provides is overall more reliable than information provided by Fox News

1) Wiki's paradox, and how it resolves

For anyone who knows Wiki, it warns users that it is not entirely reliable. For anyone who knows academic research, they know even the best studies admit there is more work to be done. Their research may be disproved if another perspective tackles on. So at least Wiki is similar to true research standards. But you ask, how do we fix this problem? With time, and the addition of further studies (or in this case, features) that improve the solution. The article was written back from 2011, and even now it still tells the same message. The apparent paradox is resolved in that, they are humbly admitting they are not up to encyclopedic standards but are still reliable overall. The combination of editorial overlook that Wiki vouches for, along with complementary websites, resolves the problems presented by the editing, even if some remain. Let me explain.

Solution: Internet Archive. Wiki has known that due to edits, it can be difficult to determine which version of Wiki is trustworthy. Well, fear no more. A news article introduces how the well-minded people discuss with each other and talk over the actual edits of Wiki. The previous versions can definitively be looked over by scholars and experts and agreed to be relatively consistent, and pinned onto the web archive for eternity, where it can never be edited. The verification of information now resolves the major problem of Wiki (that new edits may discredit old ones), while keeping all the good (people worked together in a collaborative effort to build the article). The seeming unreliability that wiki admits, is only temporary (with bad edits lasting max of one hour), while the ending result can be seen for all people to verify and check upon.

2) Wiki VS Fox

Wiki has established standards for verifiability, with numerous guidelines on trustworthy sources. They admit that the tertiary sources are dangerous to use within terms of research. But this is not about using Wiki. This is about the information provided by wiki. It is well known that Wiki's owner himself has established the standard for fact-checking, encouraging journalists and news reporters alike to do the same. The news article admits, "While this transparency is most often a tool for Wikipedia editors to keep an eye on efforts to influence content or introduce bias, it also serves as a powerful accountability mechanism". As a result of this, Wiki has managed to gain 80% accuracy in a study, even if true Encyclopedias reach 90~95% (explaining why, by Encyclopedic standard, Wiki would not be as reliable).

Just as Wiki corrects its mistakes, Fox's lack thereof is the crux of the problem. By analyzing the false news story and who is fired, it's concluded that Fox News is nowhere near reliable (as false stories are not taken down). The fact that news articles are viewed by so many people, with little chance of regret, brings Fox to the law court, especially as the responsibility is higher. Judges have deemed Fox News writers to be unreliable. Even now, Fox has not fixed its problem, with NY Times highlighting its incorrect information about COVID-19. A news critic has analyzed Fox News over a long period, and even he could only say that it was based on opinion rather than actual news and facts. 

It's just like Oromagi said. Fox has Right bias and Mixed fact reporting. Wiki is mostly factual and has nearly no bias. The fact that Fox news has less than 1/3 people who trust it should be a red flag to voters. The 67% of trust in Wikipedia goes to show that it is at least twice as reliable to the people. 

As you can see, even though you cannot use Wiki as a source in research (due to the standard of academia), the information provided is more trustworthy in Wiki. Many editors watch articles with a hawk eye, limiting biased and untrustworthy information. Wiki's "misinformation" has not even reached the news many times, unlike Fox. And Web Archive resolves the major flaw of editors combating against each other. Wiki encourages you to make each article more accurate, and check up on each other, despite anonymity. In contrast, Fox fails to fire its workers, despite knowing who wrote what, and which may be biased. The ignorance and failure to act results in more unreliable info from Fox overall.

Now onto Con.

First, let it be put on record that I do not dispute seldiora's description of reliable, i.e. "trustworthy." Now for some descriptions of my own.

Trustworthy: deserving of trust.

Trust (noun): Confidence in or reliance on some person or quality.

Confidence: A feeling of certainty; firm trust or belief; faith.

Hoax (noun): a clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact.

Hoax (verb): To deceive (someone) by making them believe something that has been maliciously or mischievously fabricated.

Deception: An instance of actions and/or schemes fabricated to mislead someone into believing a lie or inaccuracy.

Overall: in general rather than in particular, or including all the people or things in a particular group or situation.

Article: a piece of writing on a particular subject in a newspaper or magazine, or on the internet.

Now that that those descriptions are out of the way, let's begin with the debate. My opponent slightly misrepresents the warning Wikipedia issues users as it concerns its reliability as a source. Seldiora states:

Wikipedia (per seldiora's link) in fact states this:

Seldiora's statement insinuates a relative description rather than an absolute. Wikipedia states it in no uncertain terms:

So it suffices to state that we can dispense with seldiora's characterization of relative reliability since Wikipedia itself describes its reliability in accordance to no scale or degree.

CON challenges PRO  to demonstrate where Wikipedia states that it is "still reliable overall."

CON challenges PRO to quantify how "reliable" the Internet Archive has made Wikipedia.

This is erroneous. Wikipedia does not state that it applies this standard to itself. It's merely an article about Verifiability.

Irrelevant. We aren't disputing Wikipedia's accuracy with respect to other encyclopedias. You are proposing that the information on Wikipedia is "overall more reliable" than that of Fox News'.

CON challenges PRO to demonstrate how the opinion pieces he's cited quantified how correcting mistakes served the "reliability" of information on either source.

Purposefully misleading. The former gauges strictly the American public, the latter gauges the British public. And neither FOX nor Wikipedia were compared against each other.

My opponent is rushing his conclusion. He has not quantified reliability in any sense or set standard informing a comparison where info on Wiki is more reliable than that FOX. And that leads to my argument.

It is CON's position that PRO cannot quantify reliability by any set standard; hence, he cannot satisfy his onus that the information provided by Wikipedia is overall more reliable than that of FOX NEWS. My opponent argues that the information Wikipedia provides, which is not to be confused as Wikipedia the source, is "overall more reliable" than that of FOX NEWS. My opponent essentially seeks to measure a "feeling" and make a quantitative comparison, the conclusion of which would be absurd. It would be like, for example, having a debate over whose mother "loves" them the most. My opponent made sure to mention aspects of examining information like bias and accuracy, but those are subjects in and of themselves, the relationship with "reliability" not made explicitly known.

I now return the floor to PRO.

Once again, though wiki says itself it cannot be used as a reliable source of information in any case, this doesn’t not mean the information is unreliable. I have already conceded that the tertiary nature of wiki makes it volatile. I need not give a precise number that measures exactly how trustworthy wiki is. It only has to be more reliable.

Con says that accuracy and bias cannot tell us who is more true. He has failed to give us another basis for reasoning. Academic research is the most trusted ideas possible other than axioms. Such research is accurate and has no bias. (All competing interest and lack of comprehensive nature must be stated). Let’s look at an example. 1=1 as a math equation is 100% accurate. It has zero bias. Human emotion can not manipulate this equation. It is truly the epitome of trustworthiness.

Because wiki explains its standards, reasons that journalists must fact check, this is clearly more trustworthy than a site that fails to take down fake news and does not fire the people who are responsible for such. Con thinks that the people cannot decide who is more trustworthy. I guarantee you that over 95% of people over age of 18 would trust the math equation “1=1”. While very few people would agree that earth is on a turtle’s back. Any rational person would agree this common sense. So our interpretation can become the truth.

Non sequitur. CON already acknowledged your distinction between Wikipedia's provided information and Wikipedia as a source of information.

Conceding to the tertiary nature of Wikipedia as a source ought to be irrelevant unless you're conceding as well that Wikipedia as a source has a direct relationship with the information it provides, rendering your earlier contention:

CON challenges PRO to quote him verbatim or cite a statement that approximates the emboldened.

"The most trusted" by what metric? How have you accounted for and gauged the feelings of those who've read said research? And I caution you against applying circular reasoning: if that which is being "trusted" is the research's accuracy and "UN-bias-ness" then bias and accuracy serving as your premise for "trustworthy" is circular reasoning.

Yes, but Wiki's standards are not the subject of your proposition. The information itself is. By criticizing the site, you are attacking the source of information, not the information itself. Remember, you stated that Wikipedia's nature as a source doesn't necessarily apply to the information. Why would that be any less true for FOX NEWS?

Once again, CON demands that PRO provide some metric of quantification on which he bases his qualification of information as "more reliable." If PRO intends to use individual instances in which a news outlet has hosted less than accurate information, is that then his standard for reliability? If that's the case, Wikipedia lists hundreds of instances in which it has hosted hoaxes and their extant dates, several of which exceeds 10+ years (i.e. the amount of time fabricated information has been hosted by Wikipedia before being taken down.)

CON challenges PRO to quote him verbatim or cite a statement that approximates the emboldened.

I return the floor to PRO.

Because trust is a subjective measure we can only use the people's own ideas and behaviors to truly measure trust overall. Even Harvard University has an experiment which measured trust as an idea. Because more accurate and less biased information is more consistent with the truth, it is more trustworthy. Even though wiki has a lot of edits that have gone by, the millions of articles means that the average random wiki article would likely go unnoticed compared to Fox which made the news. And so the Fox News' unreliability shown with fake news and failure to take responsibility leads to untrustworthiness. It is well known that transparency is inherently related to trust. Therefore, Wiki, which has its standards laid out carefully, its CEO speaking out for fact checking, while Fox does no such thing, and has less trust from audience. Vote for wikipedia.

Then you cannot account for "overall reliability" since subjectivity undermines statements of generality.

An experiment you haven't related directly to your affirmation of the proposition. And by providing this study, you are conceding that trust, and by extension, "reliability" can be quantified since this study attempts quantification of trustworthiness. You haven't submitted any metric which informs your stating that Wikipedia's information is "overall more reliable" than that of FOX NEWS'.

You haven't substantiated that "less biased" is more consistent with the truth. You also haven't substantiated any relationship between "truth" and "trust."

This provides no mitigation since it is your position that information on Wikipedia is overall more reliable than that of FOX NEWS'. The volume of information each source deals with does not present a basis in which to grade on a curve.

You're arbitrarily selecting aspects of the information and assigning the characterizations, "unreliable" and "untrustworthy," without a standard with which to substantiate said assignments.

You're misrepresenting your citation. There's no demonstration that "transparency" is inherently related to trust. Your source outlines the interviews of 66 archaeologists and quantitative sociologists who associated transparency with trust as it pertained to digital repositories.

You've substantiated only one of those things, and that's the CEO speaking out for fact checking. The rest remain unsubstantiated.