Wikipedia is a reliable source of information

First, I would like to point out that my opponent posted his rebuttals during round 2, when he clearly agreed that round 2 was strictly for arguments. This, in itself, should give myself a default victory. However, I will continue the debate nonetheless and proceed with my rebuttals.Rebuttal 1 - Citation within WikipediaMy opponent completely concedes the fact that Wikipedia has multiple (and reliable) citations for most of its content. His only counter is that such citations can be easily tampered with. Although this is true, we go back to one of my previous arguments - such alterations are usually dealt with quickly. Citations can easily be restored via the software that Wikipedia uses that I mentioned in one of my previous arguments. Again, I would like to reinforce the fact that ANY second-hand informational website on the Internet is only as credible as its sources and the common sense of the readers. If a reader comes upon a non credible source but mistakes it for a credible one, that is purely the user's fault. It is not Wikipedia's fault that the user doesn't have the common sense to distinguish between a credible and non credible source. The fact remains that the majority of Wikipedia's articles are non vandalized with credible sources and therefore, Wikipedia is reliable.Rebuttal 2 - Quickly resolvedMy opponent gives us an example of a test he did himself in which he attempted to test the anti-vandalist measures of Wikipedia. On his first attempt, Wikipedia automatically corrected his vandalism, showing that Wikipedia does stop the majority of vandalism before it is even published. My opponent goes on to say that he tried again, and this time the auto-correction tool didn't catch his vandalism and it was only fixed until after he returned from school. Now, might I remind my opponent that 6-7 hours of a vandalized webpage isn't much damage considering the time span of the Internet and the proportion of viewers that will see the non vandalized page and the vandalized page. We also have to keep in mind that the webpage could have been fixed immediately after he left school, and not during the 6-7 hour time frame that he mentioned. Either way, we come back to one of my previous arguments - a reader would (or should) have enough common sense to know vandalism when (s)he sees it. This being said, a person who sees vandalism can easily repair the webpage at any point with the use of Wikipedia's tools. My opponent's SOLE argument is that anybody can damage a Wikipedia page. This is true, but one has to keep in mind that there are FAR more people willing to CONTRIBUTE to Wikipedia rather than destroy it. Any vandalism is therefore dealt with usually very quickly and we go back to my irrefutable source [1].Rebuttal 3 - Authors of WikipediaAgain we are back to this. My opponent's only argument is that Wikipedia is susceptible to vandalism. He ignores the fact that in practice, such vandalism isn't as common as it may seem. Not everybody are scandalous dogs out to destroy Wikipedia like so many claim. Sure, it's possible that a two year old could have written some articles, but it is up to the reader to decide this. 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? No. This just means that anybody who reads the vandalised book needs the common sense to know what is vandalized and what is not. My opponent uses Wikipedia itself to show that it isn't a credible source, by citing a Wikipedia page that admits this. Might I remind someone that this is not a proof of his case, this is merely Wikipedia acknowledging that most academic institutions do not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source. That does not mean that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, it just means that it generally isn't accepted as such.Rebuttal 4 - What is [supposedly] wrong with my caseMy opponent's only argument here is that I supposedly didn't use credible sources. My opponent attacks one of my citations in particular, Source 3 of my round 2 presentation. I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to prove here - although the source as a whole may not agree with my stance in this debate, I only cited it because I used a certain part of it to help prove my case. That is completely irrelevant with the topic at hand - such a use of citation doesn't make the citation itself unreliable. My opponent also utterly ignores my other citation, which is 100% credible and proves my case of how vandalism on Wikipedia is generally fixed extremely quickly [1]. May I also point out that a majority of the things I argued were simply arguments of intellect and common sense - meaning a citation in those cases is not necessary. Thus, this entire argument is void.Many thanks to my opponent as we move into the next round. Sources[1] http://www.research.ibm.com...