Wikipedia is a reliable source of information

Citation within Wikipedia: While I completely agree with my opponent in terms of Wikipedia multiple citing, we must take in consideration that these citations can be easily tampered with and easily removed. With this said, we must now proceed to asking ourselves this question, How reliable can the citations found in Wikipedia be? Wikipedia being a free online encyclopedia allowing anyone in the world to alter information found in this encyclopedia can never be reliable simply due to the fact that information can be easily tampered with and the fact that the wrong information could be giving to the individual. The citations within Wikipedia also vulnerable to alterations can never be reliable as just like the information provided in Wikipedia, you can never know if it is correct or not. My opponent is most likely going to tell us that the solution to this problem is by obviously clicking and looking at the source, however, we must also look into the fact that if this is so, then yahoo answer should be a reliable source for information as well. The author of the post or even a random stranger could cite a website that might appear valid, but really isn't. Website such as blogs disguised to look authentic so to escape the viewers eyes. We must also take in consideration that the reader of the document is naive to the point and thus no way to figure out if the information provided is true or not. Going to another website to verify this information will then verify my claim that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be cited in any academic work. quickly resolved Now lets take a look into my opponents claim in which vandalism occurred within Wikipedia is quickly resolved. I recently visited a page in Wikipedia: . http://en.wikipedia.org.... Upon visiting this page, I made some alteration in hopes that Wikipedia's anti-vandalize software might detect it and perhaps change. It. My first change was to delete everything and add the word "meep", the software quickly changed it. After this, I wrote the following sentence under the charity section "I love T. j Max because you sell drugs and buy drugs. Then I added a citation (the citation being my blog of course), I waited for the auto corrector to revise this sentence or rather obliterate the sentence, but it never did. I waited for about an hour then went to school. Now back from school, I checked the cite and the corrections were made. When looking into this anecdote, we find that one thing occurred, the fact that the changes I made were not removed quickly. Rather they were removed after what I can only bet was about 6-7 hours later. Between this time frame(time I made the change till time it was taken out) someone could have read the page and yes genuinely thought that T. J Max sold drugs. Unless ALL changes are made instantaneously, Wikipedia can never be a reliable source of information due to the fact that it is impossible to know when a vandalism occurred and which Information is correct and which has been altered. Authors of Wikipedia Ignoring the rate in which Wikipedia recognizes and changes any alteration, Wikipedia still faces a major problem. This problem being the fact that Wikipedia allows virtually anyone top post an article online regardless of the document's content. The free encyclopedia does not require individuals to verify his or her email address, thus allowing anyone of any-age to post there work on to Wikipedia. "I understand what their concerns are. There's no question that [on Wikipedia and similar sites] some things are great and some things are questionable. Some of the pages could be by eighth graders,"--. http://www.insidehighered.com... This problem has not only being recognized by professors and the public, but it has also being recognized by Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors. .. "-- . http://en.wikipedia.org... What is wrong with my opponents case A major problem with my opponents case, is the fact that he presents no valuable;e citations to back up his claims. The closest thing to citation that he provided was the following: . http://dl.acm.org... . Upon close examination, we can clearly see that my opponents citation does not support his case, rather it implies that Wikipedia is in need of certain changes. It implies that the Ideas brought up by Wikipedia is very intelligent, however it cannot prosper as a reliable source is it does not follow some of there policy recommendations. Thank you and I hope to receive your argument soon.