Wikipedia is a Credible Source

Note to the viewers: I would like the voters to consider Pro's ad hominems in this round when voting. Specifically when he twists a compliment I shared with him to call me a "hypocrite". Response: Firstly, I am well aware than most analogies fall apart when you read into them. Thus, Pro's rebuttal is unnecessary and warrants little consideration as I was illustrating the logic behind credibility. Pro has committed error by piecing together the definition of "peer" and "review" to make his point when in fact the real definition does not fit his agenda, "a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). My argument from the previous round stands as Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed in the actual definition of the term. It is a wonder why Pro would piece together words to form a definition when a definition exists already? In Pro's "5th" point, it is worth saying the obvious, that my arguments from the previous round still stands. Wikipedia has made it clear that expertise on material is not warranted or prioritized, showing that Pro's only real argument is not valid as Wikipedia is not peer reviewed by definition. Pro says, "Repeatedly, I have constructed alternatives to the academic standard of credibility" but this simply isn't true. He Only presented journalism as another standard to which I posted a source by journalists on the lack of credibility in journalism. This also goes to say that Pro has failed to actually show that there is another standard to adhere to. My point thus stands. Pro also ignores that journalists verify the credibility of their sources regardless of whether or not they are known. I did not question anonymous sources, but simply showed that their credibility is verified before using them. Pro also uses lawyers as a standard of credibility in an attempt to make a new standard of credibility, and while not all journalists may be made in universities, all legal experts are, and that is indisputable. Pro seems to miss the purpose of my sharing the definition of academic as it displays that research is based in academia. If we are searching for truth and knowledge than academia is the only standard. If you're interested in truth and knowledge, than sources are held to a high standard. Pro states, "That Wikipedia can be commonly relied upon for accurate information most of the time is general knowledge." I disagree. If this is general knowledge, why is this a debatable issue? Also; evidence for this claim? Again, let the reader’s note that both the founder of Wikipedia and Wikipedia itself has claimed that Wikipedia is not a credible or authoritative source. A tertiary source is also rarely used as a credible source. On this note; Pro mentions “tertiary source” a variety of times, yet this term, is a term deriving from academia. How can Pro even claim Wiki as a tertiary source, when the standard he defies, is the standard that categorizes Wikipedia as a tertiary source? Pro states, “Or every other non-academic standard in existence!?”, and I would like him to show me these other standards of measuring credibility. Pro is getting the use of sources and the means by which we evaluate sources mixed up. Again, in light of the definition of academia, what other standard should there be? The question that then arises is this; what are these sources being used for? If they are not being held to the academic standard, which is the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship, what good are they? When conducting research are we looking for facts or are we just looking for our bias-confirmation? Conclusion: I extend all of my arguments because there was no true rebuttal. If we are using sources for truth and knowledge, by definition, there is NO other standard to appeal to other than the academic standard, which is the same standard used in all professional fields of research. By the true definition of peer-review, Wikipedia is not peer reviewed, and thus Pro’s main argument is destroyed. By Pro’s classification of Wikipedia as a tertiary source, which is constructed by the academic standard of source evaluation, Pro is subjecting Wikipedia to the academic standard. I have also shown that tertiary sources are generally NOT used research but as a means to find good sources. Pro, has yet to show any other standard by which sources are evaluated, but instead only shows that other fields use sources. Pro’s only basis for Wikipedia being credible is the use of sources for no reason other than for subjective research, which makes Wikipedia’s credibility subject to interpretation as there is no standard other than Pro’s by which Wikipedia is held to. Thank you, and I ask that Pro control his emotions and refrain from attacks. -LIL