Wikipedia is a Credible Source

Greetings, This will be another refutation round. Brace yourself! 1. "In Pro's argument he admits that Wikipedia states, 'Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.'" Not exactly, for two reasons: A). Quotation is not the same as admission. I merely quoted from Wikipedia. I did not admit (or concede) anything. B). Wikipedia considers itself not a credible source insofar as the academic standard is concerned. 2. "I applaud Pro on his intellectual honesty..." Thanks! 3. "If a man digs a well and says, 'this well has poison in the water...'" False analogy. A Wikipedia article in error is not like a poisoned well. There are two main dissimilarities: A). A Wikipedia article can be quickly edited for correction while a poisoned well cannot (the water must be entirely replaced). B). A Wikipedia article might only error in one sentence, but all the water of a poisoned well is undrinkable. For these reasons, Con's analogy fails. 4. "Pro's definition of peer-reviewed is questionable..." Not really. My definition is quite literal while Con's is strictly academic. Once again, Con imposes his/her inappropriate academic standard on Wikipedia. Peer is defined as "a person who belongs to the same age group or social group as someone else." [1] Review is defined as "an act of carefully looking at or examining the quality or condition of something or someone." [2] Taken together, it becomes clear that the term "peer-review" is not limited only to the academic realm. Rather, "peer-review" may also be appropriately applied to the cross-editing and verification processes of Wikipedia. 5. "Notice that Wikipedia says..." Yes, I notice. But Con (perhaps purposely) omits what Wikipedia states thereafter: "What will remain depends upon whether the content is free of copyright restrictions and contentious material about living people, and whether it fits within Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable against a published reliable source, thereby excluding editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research. Contributions cannot damage Wikipedia because the software allows easy reversal of mistakes and many experienced editors are watching to help ensure that edits are cumulative improvements." [3] Here are the key points from this excerpt: I. Wikipedia's content must be verifiable against a published reliable source. II. Wikipedia's software corrects mistakes. III. Wikipedia has many editors that ensure that every edit is correct. No wonder Con excluded this from his/her quotation: it helps me! Talk about intellectual honesty and, geez, Con appears to be a hypocrite. 6. "The big issue within Pro's argument can be summarized in the failure to recognize a standard of credibility. Alright, now I feel totally ignored. Repeatedly, I have constructed alternatives to the academic standard of credibility. That Con accuses me of not recognizing a standard of credibility is both insulting and wrong. In Round 2, I argued that since Wikipedia is a non-academic source, it should not be subject to the academic standard. Con did not challenge my logic and, therefore, it stands. Rather, I argued that Wikipedia should be judged as all tertiary sources are (i.e. dictionaries, encyclopedias, and reference books.) That is, Wikipedia should be judged according to whether it is (mostly) accurate. Granted, Wikipedia has its faults (which can be and are quickly corrected). Yet, even gold refined a hundredfold stills caries some impurities! That Wikipedia can be commonly relied upon for accurate information most of the time is general knowledge. I do not feel like I need to substantiate this obvious claim further. However, if challenged, I would be more than thrilled to provide statistical data to support my assertion. 7. "[Pro] uses Journalism's use of anonymous sources to make his case..." More or less. My anonymous source argument was to prove that unnamed sources (like Wikipedia editors) can still be credible. For instance, an ex-gang member might be interviewed in secrecy to ensure his/her protection. What's wrong with that? Nothing at all. Let me succinctly respond to Con's arguments under journalism: I. "... journalists are created in universities..." Not all of them. II. "... held to the same academic standard...." Not even close. Look at a newspaper and tell me if you see endnotes. None? Well, that's because there's a different, equally valid, alternative standard! III. "...without a standard of credibility..." Fortunately, there is one for Wikipedia. IV. "...academic is defined by oxford..." Your point? Once again, the academic standard is irrelevant to Wikipedia. V. "What other standard could there be?" How about the journalism standard? Or the legal standard? Or every other non-academic standard in existence!? Thank you. - Mr. S. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org...