Wikipedia is a Credible Source

I. Introduction "Even in the grave, all is not lost" [1] Some may wonder why I am still fighting a seemingly hopeless battle. Perhaps, in the minds of some, the debate is already over and I have been irreparably destroyed by Con's arguments. Maybe everyone reading this already agrees that Wikipedia is not a credible source and that I should cease to blabber on this subject. To those who may think this way, I am - first of all - not going to quit. I intend on finishing strong. More importantly, I think that the onus will shift in my favor once this Round is over. II. Concession & Refutation. 1. "[The] Academic standard is the standard to which we should determine credibility." I disagree with Con's assertion for two reasons: A). Academia's standard is not the only standard of credibility. Aside from the stringent requirements of scholarly writing, other standards of everyday credibility become apparent. Journalism, for instance, considers even an anonymous source to be credible enough to be published in newspapers. The point here is that non-academic sources may very well be as credible as academic sources to common humanity. Thus, I see no reason why Academia must be the default standard. B). Tertiary sources [i.e. Wikipedia] are generally not academic and should not, therefore, be subject to such a standard. Even Con states that "Wikipedia falls under the category of a tertiary source, which are typically rejected in academic research, but are utilized to find other sources." Rather, the credibility of tertiary sources should be ascertained by its own accuracy. 2. "[There] are three types of sources; primary, secondary, and tertiary." I concede that Con is correct and will not challenge Con on that point. 3. "In some instances a tertiary source can be used as a secondary source, but this is the exception not the rule." This is a trifle objection, but could Con please give an example or two of such an instance where this "exception" is permitted? 4. "A wiki is a Web site where any user can modify the information..." I concede that Con is correct. However, it ought to be remembered that being a user on Wikipedia entails great responsibility and, accordingly, accountability. All edits made are double-checked and, so, are peer-reviewed by distinguished Wikipedia reviewers. Thus, contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia is a credible tertiary source. 5. "Authorship from any source is important in the world of academia." I would contest this point with two counterpoints: A). As aforementioned, Wikipedia should not be subject to the academic standard of credibility. Thus, Con's argument is irrelevant. B). As aforementioned, even anonymous sources (no disclosed authorship) is considered credible by some alternate standards of credibility. If this is true, then it follows that Wikipedia can also be credible with unnamed authorship (Wikipedia is actually shared by multiple, cross-checking anonymous editors). 6. Con quotes Wikipedia Jimmy Wales to support his/her point. Whether Wales is right or wrong, my position remains unscathed precisely because Wales argues that Wikipedia is not an academic source. This, once again, is agreeable with my position that Wikipedia can be a credible, non-academic source because of its internal error-rectifying system as well as its altogether different purpose of being a tertiary source. 7. Con quotes Wikipedia's "Academic Use" page which, ironically, I quoted from earlier. Here's the deal. When Wikipedia calls itself "not... a credible or authoritative source.", it is saying so in the context of an academic standard. Remove that unfair standard, as I have consistently maintained, and Wikipedia's credibility as a tertiary source becomes evident. Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source! 8. "According tot he Wikipedia page, Wikipedia is not a credible source." No, as I explained above, Wikipedia said so in the context of an academic standard. It did not say that it is not credible by all standards. Con is fallaciously equivocating terms to suit his/her own position. Do not be mislead by Con's falsehood. 9. "If you can't [cite] it than it is not a credible source." This is according to the academic standard which is not applicable to Wikipedia for reasons already established. 10. "Thank you all and I bid Pro good luck." Gramercy! I have buttressed my position well. I wish you luck back in equal proportion. III. Conclusion. When understood by the standard of intrinsic accuracy - and not the academic standard, Wikipedia's credibility shines like refurbished gold out of the molten furnace. Thanks for reading. I look forward to Con's response and to the rest of the debate. Sources: [1] Edgar Allen Poe. http://www.goodreads.com...