Wikipedia should be considered an acceptable reference material in the academic community.

Within the three days that were granted to my opponent to make his next argument this debate got some comments, one from mjg283, one from DucoNihilum, and one from tjzimmer. mjg283 seemed to be on the con side whereas tjzimmer and DucoNihilum were on the pro side. This just demonstrates how divided people are on the issue, and I do want to address the comments we recieved, because you are the people that will be voting. I will take on the comments that were against me first. From DucoNihilum "Con- I challenge you to edit wikipedia, any article you choose, without it being revised and removed within the maximum of 24 hours." Credibility is not my only argument DucoNihilum. But im sure you, as well as many know, that there is a part of wikipedia that you can see all of the recent changes. Once i post the change, you will see it on the recent changes column in wikipedia, report it, and get it off. I agree that it will catch some changes, like if i go on and change a page to say nothing but fart, but they won't catch little mistakes. The truth is that for EVERY change on there someone will not be there to police it, as you would for me, when i were to change something. But im sure your thinking,"well if they are only little changes, what is the big deal?" ill get to that later. From tjzimmer "use the argument that people have edited history or even the bible in past history are these not credible resources either teacher?" In using this argument you agree that they do change wikipedia. You compare history and the bible to wikipedia and call them all not credible resources. I agree that wikipedia is not a credible resource but there is a difference between history and the bible to a website. First why history and the bible are more credible, all i must do is prove that they are more credible than wikipedia to defeat this argument. The bible was translated not changed, and history? History is not a source, and if everyone believes the same thing then all sources will say the same thing. You say that citing the bible is no better than citing wikipedia. Whether you believe in the bible or not, what is in it are widely believed facts. Deciding whether it is true or not is not my duty, but some of the things can be proven. But comparing wikipedia to the bible, the book most of America lives off of, is ridiculous. The bible is alledgedly not true in some places, but these are just theories. Wikipedia has wrong information flat out, that can be proven. The people who wrote the Bible, knew what they were talking about, the people who wrote wikipedia are just random people like you or me, or the dumb crazy lady at the store claiming that the world will end tomarrow due to an alien invasion. We cant trust these people that write wikipedia. Which ties into the comment that was on the con side. "I like Wikipedia, but I think many people use it incorrectly. Wikipedia is a fine research tool to use, but should NEVER be cited as a source. The proper way to use Wikipedia is as a STARTING POINT. Look up an article on whatever topic you're researching, and look for citations to ACTUAL SOURCES of information within that article (web links, books, periodicals, etc . . .). Those are the sources you should ultimately consult and cite in your academic work. If a piece of information (that's not common knowledge) on Wikipedia is not sourced, we have a problem. Imagine I'm reading your paper and come across a piece of information I wasn't previously aware of. I ask "Where did you get this piece of information from?" You answer "Wikipedia". Well, I'd then ask "Where did Wikipedia get it from?" If you can't answer that, how do we determine whether or not this information is actually true? Now, Wikipedia may indeed have a nice set of first-rate editors who monitor it and correct any factual inaccuracies within a day or two. But: (a) They're human and probably make some mistakes or miss some inaccuracies (especially with articles that cover obscure topics). There are over 2 million articles on Wikipedia. It's unreasonable to assume that each of them is constantly monitored by people who have the expertise necessary to correct literally any factual error on the topic; and (b) what if you're the poor shmuck who comes across the mistake and relies on it before it gets edited?" I couldnt agree more, and planned to say something to that effect after i got some arguments, but i couldnt agree more. tjzimmer argues that the bible is no better than wikipedia. But like mjg283 says, the editors can't catch everything. Most everything in the bible can be backed up. But wikipedia? No. The author is not sourced, if brittany spear's mom postes her unfinish parenting book on wikipedia, we would never know, then what would the world go to? The truth is, wikipedia is no where close to being like the bible, its not reliable. But as i said, credibility is not my only argument, there are other reasons for my position on the topic. The kids that want to use wikipedia will use it, and nothing else, if they were to actually research, they wouldnt care about not being able to use wikipedia, so they rely fully on an unreliable source. Thank you for the "challenge" DucoNihilum but im going to have to pass. "Challenges" shouldnt determine who you vote for, as well as your position on the issue. But what you should notice is the arguments made by the debaters, and how they defended themselves. Due to absence in the last round my opponent has never refuted my arguments, so thats why i focused on comments. Im not here to debate spectators, but i think to make my position stronger i would. thank you.