Wikipedia is an Acceptable Source of Information

I do find it odd that you would use Wikipedia as a source of information discrediting Wikipedia. This is what I gather from this. Obviously, you find it to be an acceptable source of information as you are using is as a source for information. This is contradictory. You find it acceptable enough for YOU to use so therefore you must find it acceptable in some aspects. I will leave the voters to decide what this means for themselves but to me you almost conceded the debate here by using Wikipedia as a source of information that you accept for a debate. Wikipedia's Disclaimers First of all, Wikipedia makes these disclaimers in order to save themselves legally in the event of some sort of problem. Every site and company does this. It's akin to those "do not attempt" logos under the guy skydiving into a shopping cart on TV. Obviously, you aren't going to attempt. All they are saying is be wary of the information posted, they in no way are saying their site is not a credible source. You should be wary of all information on the web.a. FlagsAny article that is suspect of being bias, incorrect or misguided are flagged at the top of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org...As you can see, this article as a very visible flag at the top of the page telling you that something may be wrong with the page's info. This page would not be a credible source I admit. But Wikipedia alerts you to these pages very visibly and makes it so you know exactly what you're reading. If a page does not have a flag it is to be considered neutral and accurate. Also, just because a few pages have admitted errors and are in need of clean up in no way discredits Wikipedia in its entirety as a credible source. You say that there is a "good chance of bias in most article" yet back this up with nothing. Most implies more than half. If you can show that more than half of the articles on Wikipedia have been flagged for bias I would love to see the information on that. b. Peer ReviewThe peer review system is more than most sites have to keep the information credible. Many sites have no fact checking body or peer review. The fact that Wikipedia HAS a peer review system ON TOP OF the sources and links posted at the bottom of nearly article puts it vastly ahead of most information sources on the web. These two things alone would be good enough for most editors. Looked at by a third party and sourced. That's better than your debate arguments. That's better than most school papers. Its on par with academic journals for the intensity of the fact checking that goes on. c. SourcesI would like to point out that my opponent completely dropped my argument about Wikipedia's extensive use of sources to back its information up. I would like to remind you that most information on Wikipedia is derived from sources which are provided to the reader in order to allow them to make up their mind about information and to provide the location of the information's origin. In ConclusionMy opponent has pointed out something that we already know: all information on the internet is not perfect. Wikipedia flags problem pages so the reader knows what to watch out for. With the flags, the sources, the peer review and the information on the small amount of errors that I posted in my previous round I have seen no evidence that Wikipedia as a whole can be discredited and is indeed an acceptable source of information.In fact, it was so acceptable that my opponent used it in his argument.Thank you.