wikipedia should be considered a valid source

First I think its hilarious that your debating wikipedia is unreliable but you use wikipedia as a source of information more than 5 times( click on the first couple of sources)........contradiction......this proves my opponent obviously views wikipedia as a valuable source of information.Wikpedia is unchecked my opponent states. Wikipedia is checked....... About 91,000 editors—from expert scholars to casual readers—regularly edit Wikipedia, and these experienced editors often help to create a consistent style throughout the encyclopedia, following our Manual of Style.http://en.wikipedia.org...if there's 91,000 editors then obviously there is a very unlikely chance that information will be missed. Not to mention that there are experts in these areas that check the validity of these sources. if the info is wrong these editors correct it. It also needs to be kept in mind that everything on the Internet may have the potential of being false . the difference is editors cant correct information on other sites. While on wikipedia there is a constant checks and balance system in play witch is why wikipedia can be deemed a valid source of information. There's also a rating system witch tells how reliable the info is. (obviously if the info has low ratings you obviously shouldn't use it. but wikipedia put the rating system in place so that users can determine what is reliable and what's not, no other site to my knowledge offers this level of constant self evaluating witch is very advantageous to users. If a person is dumb enough to use info that is clearly lowly rated then its that persons fault or using poor judgement and not wikipedia fault. they provided you the tools to determine reliability. we choose whether to take there suggestions into consideration.)my opponent states wikipedia not reviewed by experts I've already proven via sources that experts do evaluate these sources but lets look deeper....."Now a peer-reviewed study by Brigham Young University political scientist Adam Brown validates Wikipedia as a reliable place to get a political education."........http://www.sciencedaily.com..."More recently in 2010, cancer researchers from Thomas Jefferson University compared oncology information on Wikipedia with that on the National Cancer Institute’s Physician Data Query (PDQ), . Both were checked against text books. Dr Yaacov Lawrence, who led the research, said: “ we found that errors were extremely rare on Wikipedia."......section.......http://blogs.channel4.com............bottom of page in the what do the experts say .obviously experts deem the site reliable.my opponents says in his case...... "After surveying experts on fields related to a wide range of featured articles, experts gave one article a rating of 1,"......he himself has just proven that experts review the info.about is survey statistics....... you cant survey 20-30 sources and deem if its reliable......there are 3,907,779 articles.20 articles cant judge 3 million plus articles ....thus this should not be considered.he also states some mishaps defaming people........if you look now all these invents they have been corrected and quite fast. so obviously its checking system works fast and efficiently. also since these incidents wikipedia has learned. Wikipedia now checks to verify the authenticity of advanced stats..............http://ia700603.us.archive.org...Unsourced quotesevery sentence in a paragraph doesn't have to be sourced......sourcing every single thing and coping without permission every single word is called plagiarism.I looked up south Korea they gave me 193 credible sources....it offers bibliographies as well and extremely in depth info and external links like no other site..obviously wikipedia is a valid source of info......http://en.wikipedia.org...