wikipedia should be considered a valid source

A Note on Sources Yes, it is true that some of my sources linked to sites beginning with the domain “www. en. wikipedia. org/wiki/. .. ” However, these were not links to the actual content of the site, but rather categories of encyclopedic articles that are merely counted by an unbiased algorithm. When an unverified statement is found on Wikipedia, editors are encouraged to put the famous [citation needed] tag, and this simultaneously places the article in a category by date. I linked to these categories when counting the number of articles where this tag is found. Unchecked No, I never said Wikipedia was completely unchecked. I merely showed how I calculated the statistic that 6% of all articles that have unverified statements. My opponent argues: “[…] on wikipedia there is a constant checks and balance system in play,” and while the checks-and-balances argument may reflect Wikipedians’ hopes, the system actually fails immensely when considering the statistic above. My opponent later states, “obviously if the info has low ratings you obviously shouldn't use it. ” I don’t know how obvious this is. The rating system is also judged by the non-expert public; so it is the public that judges the public – and while “experts” may play a role in writing Wikipedia, I can tell the audience from personal experience that the number of non-expert volunteer writers completely outnumber the infinitesimally small number of experts on Wikipedia. As I said before, the rating system is determined by the public, and the writing is determined by the public; Wikipedia articles are therefore circular in their quality control. I would also like to point out that one of the creators of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, said this of the project: “It has bothered me that I helped to get a project started, Wikipedia, that people are misusing in this way, and yet the project itself has little chance of radically improving”; Sanger later went on to create Citizendium, an encyclopedic alternative that holds expert opinion higher than its Wiki counterpart.1 Reviewed by experts All of the sources my opponent has provided for the supposed “expert review” of Wikipedia are just studies taken by interested Universities. There is no system in place on Wikipedia in which articles are reviewed by experts for approval. The study both of us have linked to are just students or professors checking how reliable Wikipedia is with a general overview. Again, I would like to repeat, there is no system in place on Wikipedia in which articles are reviewed by experts for approval. I would also like to reiterate the point that much of Wikipedia’s highest quality work was deemed poor by experts, and this is unacceptable even if there are many more that were approved. My opponent also argues that you cannot judge “20-30 articles” and deem its reliability. Not only does this negate any of my opponent’s sources that state Wikipedia’s supposed reliability, but this is in fact erroneous as the study took into account Wikipedia’s featured articles; this survey should have returned fantastic feedback! Imagine if they actually took a survey of the mediocre ones… Unsourced quotes I’m not really sure what my opponent is getting at here. When a quote is transcribed in an article, there should always be a citation that informs the reader of its source. I have shown that not all quotes have sources. My opponent’s claim that “every sentence” should not be sourced is in fact correct, but I am unsure why he placed this under this particular header. To refute this, I only need to point out again that six percent of all Wikipedia articles contain at least one unverified statement. Conclusion I have shown Wikipedia is an invalid and unverified source with hundreds of thousands of unsourced articles that does not take expert opinion into account. References 1. . http://goo.gl...