Wikipedia is a Credible Source

Comments on Pro"s Round 2 Arguments: In Pro"s argument he admits that Wikipedia states, "Wikipedia is not considered a credible source." Wikipedia"s self-awareness of this reality should be highly noted, as the argument is on whether or not Wikipedia is credible. I applaud Pro on his intellectual honesty here as he doesn"t ignore this, but embraces it. If the site in which is being debated states that it is NOT a credible source, can you disprove that the host of information is wrong? If a man digs a well and says, "this well has poison in the water", should we drink from it? Of course not, we should filter through it for what we Can find from it. This again upholds my assertion that Wikipedia is not credible.Pro"s definition of peer-reviewed is questionable, but in the world of scientific and academic research peer-review is subject to professionals in the same field as the study warrants. [1] Consider this, "In academic publishing, the goal of peer review is to assess the quality of articles submitted for publication in a scholarly journal. Before an article is deemed appropriate to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, it must undergo the following process: The author of the article must submit it to the journal editor who forwards the article to experts in the field. Because the reviewers specialize in the same scholarly area as the author, they are considered the author"s peers (hence "peer review"). These impartial reviewers are charged with carefully evaluating the quality of the submitted manuscript. The peer reviewers check the manuscript for accuracy and assess the validity of the research methodology and procedures.If appropriate, they suggest revisions. If they find the article lacking in scholarly validity and rigor, they reject it." [2] This is Not the standard to which Wikipedia adheres to. Notice that Wikipedia says, "What is contributed is more important than the expertise or qualifications of the contributor. What will remain depends upon whether the content is free of copyright restrictions and contentious material about living people"" [3] This, then, compromises the purpose of peer-review And Pro"s argument regarding Wikipedia"s peer review. This is vital to the debate, as we surly would not want a history expert editing a biology page nor a physicist editing a physician"s page. This again compromises the idea of pee-reviewed journals. The Big IssueThe big issue within Pro"s arguments can be summarized in the failure to recognize a standard of credibility. Pro"s arguments actually hinge on the assumption that the academic standard is not the standard to adhere to. In Pro"s attempt to show that academia is not the only standard to adhere to, he uses Journalisms use of anonymous sources to make his case. He states, "Journalism, for instance, considers even an anonymous source to be credible enough to be published in newspapers", but fails to remember that Journalists are pressed, "To protect their credibility and the credibility of their stories, reporters should use every possible avenue to confirm and attribute information before relying on unnamed sources." [5] In fact, because of the lack of verifiable credibility anonymous sources have for the public, journalists rarely use anonymous sources. The proper question here, then, is "by what standard is the anonymous source held to?" Another question is, with all of the trouble of questionable credibility of journalists, can we really say they can be considered a standard of credibility? [6] Firstly, I would argue that journalists are created in universities and therefore held to the same academic standard as general researchers, historical researchers, scientists, engineers, etc. Secondly, without a standard of credibility, anything can be credible. If credibility is relative than I can conclude that my daughter"s "Hop on Pop" Dr. Sues book is credible since Mr. Sues is a 'Doctor'. Thirdly, academia is defined by oxford dictionary as, "the environment or community concerned with the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship" [7]. Scholarly is defined as, "Involving or relating to serious academic study" [7]. This raises the question, what other standard could there be? The reason this standard carries over from university to the fields of science and vice versa is because it IS the standard. However, if we are merely speaking on credibility as the simplest definition, "reasonable to trust or believe" than we can continue to determine that Wikipedia is not credible as it"s creator says it is not, and its own "peer reviewed" articles make the same claim. Thank you.LIL [1] http://www.lib.utexas.edu... [2] http://guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.spj.org...[6] https://www.questia.com...[7] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...