Wikipedia is a good source of information

I would like to start off this round of debate with negating the Pro's arguments, and bringing up some of my own if time (or characters) allows First, only one example is needed for this argument, for it clearly presents the fact that wikipedia is liable to modification so that the page presents false information. I cannot imagine how the Pro failed to hear this for i clearly stated that "it defines itself as something that anyone, including various "trolls" on the internet, may edit so that the information it produces is false" and then proceded to show an example. Second, The Pro states that there are "a great number of normal reasonable people who all have some knowledge of an event". The Pro states "some knowledge", by this the Pro is stating that they do not have complete and utter knowledge of "an event" which is another extremely vague statement and should therefore not be followed up on if you have no evidence to prove it. Third, The Pro states that "there are a enormous number of people who watch for changes made to any article ", first of all, I would prefer to see a more specific number than a vague statement such as "an enormous number". Second, there are 3,719,838 pages on wikipedia according to http://en.wikipedia.org... and this means it would take this supposed "enourmous amount of people" days if not weeks to months to find and review all of the pages, not to mention the research it would require for the legitimizing of said pages. Fourth, The Pro states that the pages CAN be locked, once this alleged team of "thousands of people" find it. as i stated previously, there are about 3,719,838 pages on wikipedia, which would make difficult the task of finding foley information on one of the pages. fifth, The Pro has stated no evidence in which he may present to me the fact that supporters of sarah palin changed wikipedia's information on paul revere. If The Pro could prove that this happened, then he would only be supporting the fact that wikipedia is very vulnerable to false modification, and thus proving it a illegitamite resource. sixth, The Pro states that the wikipedia team could not find and correct a flaw in the information of a page that raised an "implication that stood for sometime without being corrected". in this time, many people likely viewed the article and aqired false information. Additionally, i fail to see how the Pro's statement showed that wikipedia can grow stronger, for he states no evidence to prove so. Also, an "old saying" should NOT be evidence to this. seventh, i hardly think that there have only been one or two wikipedia pages that have carried "some false information", in fact, the evidence i showed in my first speech shows not one or two, but twenty-five. eighth, if you these theorems are so "famous" then why not look them up on various other websites that are nnot liable to false editing so that one may be sure that it is not false information they are gathering from wikipedia. Additionally, i would greatly apreciate it if the Pro had any evidence to back up his arguments. ninth, I really do not apreciate that i have to stress the amount of wikipedia slip-ups, it is in fact, not just "one or two". Now, i would like to bring up a new argument first, wikipedia is largely a website constructed for convenience rather than quality. as http://www.insidehighered.com... states, professers and teachers around the nation are very strict with the usage of wikipedia as a source, and will not permit it as a valid cite for information. This has even gone to the point that the history department at middlebury college is barring the use of wikipedia in their classes. Thank you and i look forward to your future rebuttle.