Wikipedia is a good source of information

"the Pro is stating that they do not have complete and utter knowledge of "an event" which is another extremely vague statement and should therefore not be followed up on if you have no evidence to prove it."How do I have to show sources to prove that people have general knowledge of worldly events????? I dont need to show a source that people know that World War 2 was fought between the Allied and Axis powers, that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, that George Bush is from Texas, etc. Number of people who monitor changes to Wiki Articles = 89,000 with 2,000 on payrollhttp://www.infotoday.com...The Con does not know how Wikipedia works at all because when a change is made to any one article, the administrators are notified of the change and decide whether the change is legit or if it is just spam or vandalism. There are 3+ Million pages but the administrators do not have to constantly look over every page like the Con believes, they are notified of any changes made to any article, can examine those changes, and then decide to keep them or not.Evidence of the Sarah Palin - Paul Revere incident on Wikipedia = http://www.theroot.com...This story proves though that Wikipedia can be resilient to false modification because the Wiki administrators found the constant modifications these followers tried to make to the Wiki article because they failed in their objective, the truth was preserved, and Paul Revere's article today still only gives true facts. For your 6th point, acquired is spelled with a Q, but more importantly I showed how the error was found, corrected, and is now protected from any further vandalism. What was exposed before is now protected. Also the old saying I used was a simply a comparison, I wasnt using it as an actual source so relax. Your source found 25 errors that today no longer exist on Wikipedia out of 3 Million + articles in English alone,25 / 3,000,000 = .0000083% = error rate1 / .0000083 = 120,482So with the Con's argument for every 1 mistake in the PAST made on a Wiki article, about 120,482 articles were never inaccurate, is that ratio too low for a site to be considered unreliable? As for the 8th argument, an equation is always an equation i dont need a source to prove that."why not look them up on various other websites that are nnot liable to false editing so that one may be sure that it is not false information they are gathering from wikipedia?"Because the information is still correct if you actually took the time to look it up instead of asking me to show you, but here is some proof showing how famous laws and equations On wikipedia are just the same to how other websites describe them,Newtons Laws http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...http://en.wikipedia.org...Einsteins E=Mc^2http://www.worsleyschool.net...http://en.wikipedia.org...Fibonacci Sequencehttp://mathworld.wolfram.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...Wikipedia gives all the same information as the rest of the web.The majority of the Con's argument rests on the idea that Wikipedia should not be used under any circumstances because people can contribute information to articles and that information is always incorrect. But I have found many sources that show that Wikipedia is a very accurate source of information, in some cases it is even comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica.http://howtosplitanatom.com...http://news.cnet.com...http://slashdot.org...http://www.nationaltechcenter.org...This is my favorite because A Nobel Prize winner in chemisty who teaches at FSU says that Wikipedia is more reliable than his own textbooks (Sir Harold Kroto)http://www.reflector-online.com...Also the Vandalism the Con is using in his argument is not as big as a problem as the Con wants you to believe. Vandalism of articles affects less than 1% of all Wiki Articleshttp://www.cbsnews.com...Wikipedia is a good source of information because even though anybody can contribute to it, any changes must first be approved by the administrators, vandalism is only a very small problem, and the information on the Wiki articles have been proven by many different researchers and studies to be a very accurate source for information