Wikipedia should be considered a viable source on DDO

I anticipate a fair and honest debate with him! :)Note to judges and to my opponent: since this is a debate about the legitimacy of sources, I don't think that they will or should play an overly large role in the spectrum and judging of the debate, unless either of us are asserting things that undeniably need to be proven (example: wikipedia systematically endorses "x", wikipedia is proven to be perfectly valid by "x" study). If my opponent does not contest this, we could both agree to discount using or judging sources, unless it is apparently necessary to do so. If he would like to retain the judgement of sources, then that's also fine. I will cite wikipedia in this debate, but not as a citation for proving a fact. Any links to wikipedia made will only be present to cite wikipedia policies about itself. Clarifications of factZ. Wikipedia is a secondhand source. Z1 - Secondhand sources are not inherently inviable. Y. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopediaX. The fact that wikipedia can be edited by anyone speaks nothing to it's legitimacy as a secondhand sourceX1 - Since wikipedia is a second source based off of primary resources, as long as information is properly cited, critiquing who is doing the citing is a red herring. ArgumentsA1. Wikipedia is an encyclopediaA2. Textbooks, nonfictional writing, and encyclopedias are in most cases viable sources. A3. Textbooks, nonfictional writing, and encyclopedias are intended relayers of information already proven valid by factual studies or direct evidence. They are secondhand sources. A4. Wikipedia is a relayer of information already proven valid by factual studies or direct evidence, and is a secondhand source. A5. In order for content to retain it's status on wikipedia, it must be cited by a widely considered reliable or notable source. [1]A6. Content that is not cited by a widely considered reliable or notable source is either considered vandalism or unsuitable, and is removed or tagged as such for readers. [2] [3] [1]A7. Because wikipedia does not consider vandalism or unsourced content valid, it is essentially the equivalent of someone taking a pen and adding their own entry into an encyclopedia or textbook. A8. Therefore, wikipedia is as equally reliable as any other encyclopedia, textbook, or resource of the sort. A9. Because wikipedia is valid in this fashion, it should be considered viable. B1. Wikipedia has the capacity to reassure the validity of an assertionB2. The point of any source utilized in a debate is to reassure the validity of an assertion a contender makes during the debate. B3. To prove that wikipedia is inviable, my opponent would be responsible for proving wikipedia's incapacity to perform B2. B4. Wikipedia consists of all content in it's active namespace that adhere to the policies set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation [4]B5. Wikipedia policy dictates that Wikipedia can only exist as a secondhand source and not as a platform for original research or as a soapbox [4]B6. Because wikipedia only cites information and is not original in any way whatsoever, it is thus capable of reassuring the validity of an assertion unless proven not so by con. C1. Wikipedia is more reliable than news organizationsC2. Citing news organizations - such as BBC, CNN, NBC, FOX, CBS, etc - is widely considered normal and/or viable on DDOC3. Citing wikipedia is considered by many on DDO to not be normal and/or viable on DDOC4. Most news organizations do not directly cite sources of information, facts, or statistics presented in their articlesC5. Wikipedia does directly cite sources of information, facts, or statistics presented in it's articles. C6. The citing of any studies, organizations, and evidence pertaining to the content presented by a secondhand source is a major factor concerning reliabilityC7. Since wikipedia does this and other sources considered viable on DDO do not, it should be considered viableWikipedia Policies (references)[1] - (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) [2] - (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)[3] - (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)[4] - (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)