Wikipedia should be considered a viable source on DDO

If it's facts are completely illegitamate, could it still be trusted? Example- You buy a volume of encyclopedias, but you disagree with some of the articles, so you get a pen and rewrite them in your own fashion. Then your friend does the same, then another, then another. After 100 friends have added their (sometimes biased) opinions to your book, and you have 100 different opinions on one fact, could you still call it a "viable source? " This also adresses A7. "Wikipedia is as equally reliable as any other encyclopedia, textbook, or resource of the sort. "Wrong! Due to the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it is much less reliable than the facts that you get from a cited, professionally written, triple checked book written by true professionals. "Most news organizations do not directly cite sources of information, facts, or statistics presented in their articles. "The main reason that news networks do not directly cite the facts on their page is simply because they don't need to! They have professional writers that are paid to write these articles. They actually go to the scene of the crime to collect the facts. Their primary source is themselves. And before anything is posted, they have people check it over multiple times, something that people simply don't do on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia cites it's sources"Now, you didn't actually say this, but because about half your debate was about it I will imply it as fact. But just because the source is cited dosen't mean that the information is 100% creditable. In fact, I'll prove it to you! Below I have posted a link to a source that say cherries are grown on a banana bush. . http://realworldfacts.weebly.com...Of course, all this information is false, both bananas and cherries are grown on trees. But by Daltonian's arguement, since I have cited my work, it is legitamite. Put it on Wikipedia! Second Round- Editing Policy- "Since Wikipedia's goal is to compile all knowledge in one place, it is never complete. " False. A poll taken in 2012 could be considered complete. The life of George Washington could be considered complete. Yet these Wikipedia articles could still be completely incapable of delivering the actual facts. Why? Human error. But more significantly, human error, magnified by the number of people editing. Example- You have 100 people editing an article on the Vietnam War. Each person can't be expected to make everything exactly right, so they each make one error. That's 100 errors. 100 errors lying in wait, 100 errors that could mean the difference between a good grade and a bad one. 100 errors is a lot, and there are more than 100 editors on Wikipedia. "Does my opponent suggests that an encylclopedia written by majorly males is inherently inviable? "Let's say you take ten men that all have the same ideals, and put them in a room together to complete a project. They come out with a list of facts, that gives nothing but some bullets on a page. Now, lets say that you take a diverse group of people, and let them work it out on a page. Chances are the they will come up with a much more interesting paper then the people that were all the same. Deletionists and inclusionists are terms used to refer to the stance of wikipedians on the issue of whether content should ever be deleted if it is verifiable. They are not a "select group of people", and they have no "motto". I apologize if you misunderstood, I meant that due to the actions of these people, this motto could be included in their overall profile. But deletionists do more then simply looking for the correct information. They look for the information that they think should be there. Otherwise, they delete it. And the Wiki foundation does not actually enjoy it when people delete. "He also uses a red herring. It doesn't matter who has written a second-hand article, as long as they display a competent ability to cite the first-hand studies and sources of others, they are equally credible. "You are incorrect. If given the choice between a first time writer who barely knows how to copy-paste, and a seasoned writer who always cites the best sources, I would go with the ladder, wouldn't you? But as I know your refutal to this will be "But it works, so it's viable. " So I will take the liberty of countering that too. Small errors can sometimes lead into bigger problems. Example- The editor in question replaces the quote "Donuts are healthy" with "Donuts can be healthy". This leads to people putting the incorrect quote into their reports, articles, and other important documents. This demonstrates what Chineese whispers can do to a Wikipedia page. Now- to add points of my own. Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification. [1]This goes to show that everyone and anyone can just pop on to Wikipedia, and edit a few pages. Wikipedia also doesn't require you to have an account to be able to edit. These things can cause mass vandalism, making the site an inviable source of information. When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, an arguement may present itself. As everyone knows, all people can't have everything, all the time. And the point still stands on Wikipedia. People get into arguements, and since both of them can't be right, one of them is giving out false information. Also, since you can't be online all the time, people will try to change another editor's information without them noticing. This leads to a Wiki War, where niether will back down until, eventually, someone has to break them up, sometimes they will ban someone who was standing up for their work because they knew it was right. That effectively silences the person that was just trying to edit. For my opponent to fufill his BOP, he must prove that I could go to any Wikipedia page and collect the correct information from that page. Unfourtanetly, there is proof upon proof that incorrect pages are everywhere on Wikipedia. Thus, Daltonian does not fuffill his BOP. [1]- . http://realworldfacts.weebly.com...;(this is a fake source that I made up to prove my point, and in no way should be taken seriously)[2]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...