Wikipedia should be considered a viable source on DDO

I would like to make the statement that continuing the argument in the comment section is not proper conduct. Just a precaution.Facts That May Have Been Missed-BOP- Burden of Proof. Rests on the person that has to change what is already fact.I.E.- If a book was banned in a library, and there was an argument that the book should be allowed, BOP rests on the person who is trying to prove that the book should be allowed back into the library. Now, I'm not saying that this is the way things are happening in this debate, just wanted to point that out.Viable- Able to be used successfully.Now, to rebuttals-"If you rewrite the contents of an encyclopedia with a pen (which is what vandals on wikipedia are essentially doing), then the encyclopedia in it's unaltered form is a viable source."I strongly disagree with this counter argument. This basically states that everyone will write exactly what they are told to write exactly as it should be.Unfortunately, human nature happens to get in the way. Now, human nature is correctable, but you are trying to state that wikipedia is next to perfect, with everyone solving each others problems. This is not the case, so this argument is irrelevant."Most vandalism on wikipedia is reverted automatically or within minutes."Incorrect. In fact, a poll was taken showing that only 42% of vandalism is corrected within minutes.In fact, quoting the IBM poll- "A 2007 peer-reviewed study stated that "42% of damage is repaired almost immediately... Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views." [1].Now, 2007 may seem like a long time ago, but what my opponent says about Wikipedia being "less developed" are only half true. Wikipedia may have increased the number of error corrections, but the number of incorrect posts is still massive."There is no professionalism required in being able to cite a source as a secondhand writer."No, but there is some skill required in writing, good, honest, viable pages. For example, you take two versions of the same page.1- Waffles are[] good for breakfast. People[] say they are tasty.2- Waffles[] are a breakfast delight enjoyed by many! A poll[] was recently taken showing that 70% of people enjoy waffles.If you really think about it, could you even consider the first one viable? It simply states the obvious. Just because it has creditable sources doesn't mean that the page is creditable itself!"This point falsely assumes that news organizations are, for the most part, primary sources of information."No, I clearly stated that news stations are more reliable than Wikipedia, to counter your round one argument- "Wikipedia is more reliable than news organizations." Which, given the facts, is false."If wikipedia is unreliable because unreliable URLs and websites are out there, then all encyclopedias are unreliable because there are unreliable books out there."I completely disagree. If a false url is posted on Wikipedia, it is considered a source of information. If you take two completely different books, and then put them on the same shelf, that doesn't make one of them false if the other contains bad information, does it?My opponent responded by saying,"False. A poll taken in 2012 could be considered complete. The life of George Washington could be considered complete."A poll taken in 2012 is not akin to a place where all knowledge is compiled. There is no analogy between them.You misunderstood once again. I stated that there are certain things that have been completed, and that simple human error is what is keeping them from being complete, not the actual subject still producing information to be catalogued.If there are 100 people working on an article, and one makes a mistake, there are 99 other editors there to quickly notice it and fix the error.I understand this argument, but I disagree with the concept. Rest assured that more than one error will be posted, and that people simply will not catch all of them, which brings me back to pro's point on the "perfection" of Wikipedia.Males v females ratioThis is a borderline sexist argumentUnlike you just blatantly stated, the argument was actually about the lack of diversity between editors, not the gender ratio. The statement that you just made could be considered more sexist than my actual argument.There is no "cult" of users controlling wikipedia and enforcing their beliefs on wikipedia.Once again, I never said there was. I stated that deletionists are certainly not helping Wikipedia, not that they were a cult.I stated that the general profile of the deletionist has been taking Wikipedia over, not that a cult has been.If BBC, Harvard, or SA makes an error and corrects it in a reasonable amount of time, they are still viable.If Wikipedia makes an error and corrects it in a reasonable amount of time, they are not viable because wikipedia can be edited by anyone.Honestly I think this should be corrected to-If BBC, Harvard, or SA makes an error and corrects it in a reasonable amount of time, it is corrected, the page is searched, and the other errors are removed, and the page will never be edited again.If Wikipedia makes an error and corrects it in a reasonable amount of time, they are not viable because wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and soon enough, some vandal, first-timer, fake-sourcer, or troll will come along and mess it up again.Closing Remarks-I have rebutted all of Pro's major arguements, but he has failed to sucessfully counter mine.Thus pro has failed to prove his BOP, and loses this debate. (I even rebutted the picture)