Wikipedia should be considered a viable source on DDO

Definitions-Viable- "Capable of being done or used, capable of succeeding. "[1]Now, to business. a- Wikipedia's Editing Policy a1- Wikipedia's streamlined editing policy is- "Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help. Even the best articles should not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance the content in it anytime. "[2]a2- "Even the best articles should not be considered complete" is one of the main points in this article written by Wikipedia. It clearly states that Wikipedia has faults in even the best articles, which can lead to false information going into debates. a3- False information in debates can be a huge problem, because it can lead to a wrong vote for the wrong reasons. b- Errors in Wikipediab1- Wikipedia cannot be considered a source that is "able to be used sucessfully", because of the many errors in articles, which can be considered an "improper use of cited sources" which, as it clearly states in the DDO FAQ[3], is frowned upon. b2- False information has happened before! In Ireland, a kid named Shane Fitzgerald posted a fake quotation on Wikipedia on the page of recently deceased French composer Maurice Jarre. Other Wikipedia users tried to remove it, but he kept posting it until it was allowed to stay. [4]b3- Some administrators sometimes have an agenda. For example, when British scientist William Connolley recieved the status of administrator on Wikipedia, he re-edited over 5,000 articles that opposed his theories that global warming was receeding. [5]b4- People will sometimes falsify pages. An example of this is when John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was unknowingly added to the assassination of the Kennedy brothers on his Wikipedia biography for a period of more than 100 days without his knowledge. [6]b5- There is not much difference between writers. "According to a 2009 survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, 87 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, with an average age of 26.8 years. "[7]b6- Sometimes, accurate information can be deleted. A recent survey was taken, showing that Wikipedia's editor count has dropped by a staggering 200,000, and is currently being controlled by a group labeled "The deletionists". These people live under the motto "Edit first, ask questions later. " And will overwrite any information that collides with their own. This makes it harder for Wikipedia, who says they strive to give “the sum of all human knowledge”, to overlook the fact that they are controlled by a select group of people. [8]b7- Wikipedia says it itself. Wikipedia has said "We do not expect you to trust us. " And it goes on to talk about how it "isn't a primary source" and how you "shouldn't use it to make critical decisions". It's telling us itself that it makes errors! [9]b8- Teachers have started to steer their students away from Wikipedia. Due to the errors that can be found on Wikipedia's database, teachers have been steering away from Wikipedia, and towards things like Culture-Grams, Discovery Online, and other sources that have actually been written by professionals. Why should this debate site, that is supposed to be controlled by people with the facts, be any different? Sources-1- . http://www.merriam-webster.com...2- . http://en.wikipedia.org...3- . http://www.debate.org...4- . http://www.nbcnews.com...5- . http://wattsupwiththat.com...6- . http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...7- . http://www.webpronews.com...8- . http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...9- . http://en.wikipedia.org...