Wikipedia should be considered a viable source on DDO

I will present my final rebuttals in this round. May everyone reading please note that my opponent can present no new arguments in the final round, only final rebuttals and his conclusion. --------------First Round Counter-RebuttalsMy opponent has still dropped some of the key concepts of my points from R1. FR1. ""Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" An encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone and everyone. 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 addresses A7. "This point does not adequately refute my contention. The first part of his rebuttal consisted of alleging wikipedia is entirely illegitimate because it can be edited by anyone without proper sourcing of why that is. 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. Most vandalism on wikipedia is reverted automatically or within minutes. FR2. "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. .. "There is no professionalism required in being able to cite a source as a secondhand writer. If you are unable to do so, your edits will be quickly reverted and you will be blocked until you prove yourself able to do so as per WP policy. [1]FR3. "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. "This point falsely assumes that news organizations are, for the most part, primary sources of information. In some cases, news stories are original reports, but in most cases, they are doing what is in their namesake: spreading news. They do not "create" news, they retell it as a secondhand source. FR4. ""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 legitimate. Put it on Wikipedia! This argument is misleading. Wikipedia policy dictates that only reliable or otherwise notable sources can be cited as a reference. "URL" is not a synonym of "reliable source". [3]"If wikipedia is unreliable because unreliable URL's and websites are out there, then all encyclopedias are unreliable because there are unreliable books out there. This argument is fallacious. Second Round Counter-RebuttalsSR1. Here, I point out that Wikipedia is never complete, as it's goal is to compile all knowledge, and human knowledge can always be expandedMy 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. SR1A - 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. Whilst I understand the concept my opponent is trying to grasp, his argument is unfortunately fallacious. In order for his argument to have bearing, human error would have to be universally incorrectible or permanent. 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. Why assume 100 people will all automatically be capable of making an error, but not quickly fixing or noticing one? Especially if most active wikipedians are veterans of the site and highly skilled at picking up common errors?100 competent individuals working together on an article will systematically tend to produce better results than one highly intelligent person working on one alone, because of the mere beauties of collaboration and outside perspective. SR2 - Males v females ratioThis is a borderline sexist argument. There is no cognitive correlation between the presence of a penis as genitalia and any certain ideal, capacity to perform, or belief set. In other words, intellectual and viable results can still be reached without a 50/50 mix of penises and vaginas in the room. The only instance in which the presence of both sexes would matter would be on a topic directly related to men's or women's issues. Approximately 12% of wikipedians are female, and 1-2% of all wikipedia articles directly correlate to women's issues. [2] This is a sufficient amount. Diversity is not directly tied to accurate writing or performance. SR3 - Deletionism and inclusionism I will further explain the topic of deletionism and inclusionism on wikipedia. There is no "cult" of users controlling wikipedia and enforcing their beliefs on wikipedia. Deletionists support deleting articles which do not meet wikipedia guidelines about notability, verifiability, and conduct. Inclusionists support including all article so long as they are not inherently vulgar or untrue. Either way, all content on wikipedia remains verifiable and accurate. The issue here concerns what is or is not included on the wiki. This issue is irrelevant to the resolution, as we are not debating whether certain content should or should not be added to wikipedia, but whether the content on wikipedia is viable for use in the form of proving an assertion. Even if there was a systematic bias in excluding certain topics (there isn't), it would have no direct effect on the viability of the content that is included, as it is no less reliable as a result of so. SR4 - Red herring regarding ability to cite a sourceCompetence is required on wikipedia [1]. Therefore, a first time writer would be barred from editing wikipedia after his incompetence is displayed. He would be encouraged to take many of Wikimedia's tutorials on how to edit and write, and then have his rights reinstated [1]. This argument also assumes that a significant amount of wikipedia editors do not know how to copy-paste, and that a significant majority would not be present to automatically correct the mistakes made. New Point RebuttalsA. IdentificationIt is indeed true that wikipedia editors preserve their right to edit anonymously. However, in order for my opponent to make this fact favourable to his side of the resolution, he would need to prove there is a definitive link between anonymity and incapability to properly cite a source or function as a competent secondhand writer. He has failed to do so. B. ArgumentsWikipedia carries a policy known as the 3RR rule, which forbids more than 3 reversions of an edit during a conflict. If this rule is broken, both editors are suspended from editing the article until the community reaches a consensus. [4]C. Last Minute change of BOPI highly contest my opponent's point here. He suggests that, if a source has an insignificant or very small minority of incorrect information (in wikipedia's case, almost all incorrect information is removed by a passing editor or a BOT), then it is entirely inviable for sourcing. In this case, all of the following organizations cannot be used as a source:BBCHarvardScientific AmericanetcWhy? Because at some point during all of their continued existences, they have promoted an incorrect page. None the less, in most of these cases, the error was quickly corrected, and so they are still considered viable and reliable. 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. By claiming that I have this BOP, my opponent is practically stating the above. In conclusion- My opponent has failed to prove that wikipedia cannot be successfully used to verify an assertion, only made comments about anonymity and lack of professionalism being tied to inviability without proper explanation. - Thus, wikipedia is not inviable. - Because wikipedia is not inviable, it should be considered viable on DDO. [1] - (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) [2] - (. http://www.theatlantic.com...) [3] - (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) [4] - (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)