Wikipedia is a reliable source of information

Before I begin, My opponent neglects the fact that I did not only post my rebuttal but based my argument on my opponents contentions. Rebuttal is directly attacking my opponents contentions, however I expanded from my opponents contention to create a whole new argument. Rebuttal on Citation My opponent claims that I conceded the fact that Wikipedia has multiple citations, however, he neglects the fact that that this is completely useless. What good is multiple citation if you are unable to identify which is reliable and which is altered. My opponents base for this claim is the fact that such alterations are quickly changed, however, like I proved in the first round, such alterations are indeed fixed but at a time span that allows several users to be acquire the wrong information. While completely agree with my opponent's statement "ANY second-hand informational website on the Internet is only as credible as its sources and the common sense of the readers," we must look into the fact that the resolution reads "Wikipedia is a reliable source of information" not Wikipedia is a reliable source of information with the use of common sense." Arguing that Wikipedia just like other online wiki's is only as reliable as its user is intelligent, is completely out of the realm of the debate. In this round, we will argue that Wikipedia on its own proves to be reliable or not. Now, my opponent states that it is the user's fault for using for using a non credible citation; however, he disregards my previous argument stating that assuming the reader is naive to the topic at hand, any information that seems accurate is thus seen as credible. How is the user to know what sources are credible and which is not? the fact is that unless Wikipedia is able to distinguish sources in terms of credibility and provide this list to its viewers, it cannot be a reliable source of information. Ones again my opponent makes a blank claim. He states that a majority of Wikipedia document with credible sources is not vandalized, yet he provides no evidence supporting this claim. He provides no data from his personal test proving that most Wikipedia document's are not vandalized. Unless he is able to provide a CREDIBLE evidence to prove this claim, it remains void. Rebuttal on quickly resolved My opponent claims that 6-7 hours of vandalism poses no real damage; however my opponent disregards the fact that within 6-7 hours, I can type four essays all cited by Wikipedia. If I were to turn in all four of these papers with inaccurate information, then I will surely fail due to the simple fact that I presented an inaccurate information. 6-7 hours is enough time for hundreds of people to use an altered page and yes fail. My opponent states that the problem could have been fixed as soon as I left for school; however, this still leaves at least an hour opening for some one to use the false evidence. This hour also leaves room for someone of my tying speed (65 wpm) to type a 3,900 word essay with false evidence. My opponent ones again mentions that one should be smart enough to differentiate between reliable and unreliable evidence. While I still stand to the fact that this is out of the realm of the resolved, I will analyze this argument: 1. The reader is unable to tell which information is reliable and which is not. 2. The fact that the reader has to verify whether an information in Wikipedia is true or not, simply supports my position that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. My opponent claims that any one person who notices a vandalism can easily repair it. Ones again he fails to answer the question posed in my first argument...How can they know if a source is vandalized? Assuming that these people have no background information, there is no way to tell if an information is vandalized unless quite visible. Ones again, the fact that a viewer has to look and possibly repair vandalism in a site, only makes Wikipedia less reliable in terms of finding true and credible information. Ones again my opponent makes a claim that far more people Contribute to Wikipedia rather than destroy without supporting this claim with credible evidence. this claim is also void as it is baseless. Ladies and gentlemen, I will like you to plz read my opponents citation. This evidence states that some documents are crafted by registered authors while most are created by anonymous users. This simply adds to the fact that ANYBODY can post information of Wikipedia. Rebuttal on Author "I could go to my local library and write random, incorrect facts all over a book. Does this mean the book is not a reliable source? " This analogy made by my opponent is highly flawed. Unlike Wikipedia, the alteration made on the book is easily recognized. The reader is able to recognize the alteration and simply ignore it. If the alteration is now so bad that it prevents the ability for one to read, then that book itself on its own is unreliable. The reader in my opponents analogy, does not need to contemplate whether an information is true or not, he/ she simply needs to look and see. Unlike this analogy, there is no way to distinguish a vandalism unless quite clear (which in most cases isn't). My opponent misunderstands my use of Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia to show my opponent that even Wikipedia editors and owners recognizes the fact that Wikipedia is unreliable. No where in my citation of Wikipedia does it mention that most academic institution does not accept Wikipedia. It simply states that Wikipedia should not be used as a credible source. Rebuttal on opponents Case: My opponent claims that he used a certain part of his third citation to prove a point; however he doe not tell us which part of the evidence he uses. I on the other hand provide the reader as well as my opponent an explanation of how HIS evidence supports my position as a whole. Never did I make the citation out to be irrelevant. I only ignored my opponents previous sources because it has nothing to do with this debate. My opponent claims that his arguments were plainly logic, however this statement is not true. My opponent states that vandalism is repaired quickly. This is not logic, but a claim and thus needs evidence to support it. My opponent fails to do this, thus his claims remain void. Thank you and hope to receive your response soon.