Wikipedia should be considered a viable source on DDO

Thanks for the intriguing arguments! I will now take a shot at refuting them.I'll add another definition:Inviable -"Not Capable of being done or used, capable of succeeding."1. Lack of rebuttals to my contentionsMy opponent has dropped all of my contentions.Since my opponent did not rebut any of my three points, I expect and hope he will refute them in the upcoming round. If not, I would like to clarify both to him and to all voters that he still needs to refute points A-C of my original argument.2. RebuttalsA. Editing PolicyA1, A2 & A3 - In these points, my opponent has failed to justify why something that is incomplete is not inherently incapable of successful use. For example, most dictionaries are widely considered forever incomplete, as new words are added to the english language every year. The basic study of the universe, science, is infinite and thus incomplete as well.Since Wikipedia's goal is to compile all knowledge in one place, it is never complete. However, suggesting that the knowledge compiled at "x" point is time because more knowledge will be compiled at "y" point in time is fallacious.Being incomplete is far from a fault. Human knowledge is never complete.Since A3 relies on the "incompleteness" of wikipedia being a fault rendering it inviable for a source, it is moot.B.Errors in WikipediaB1 - This is incorrect. Wikipedia is a source that is capable of being used successfully. Errors in particular articles or in certain instances do not illegitimize it as an organization successful of reference. This argument is a composition/division fallacy [1]To prove that wikipedia is overall inviable, my opponent would have to prove that, overall, wikipedia is not capable of being used successfully. In more cases,Example: If BBC makes an error in one of their reports, they are not incapable of being used viably. In most instances, this error does not exist, and thus they as an organization should be considered viable.Example: There are seventeen typos in a dictionary. Does this illegitimize the viability of using the rest of the definitions successfully?B2 - My opponent misrepresents the content of this article, which actually has a pro-wikipedia theme.To quote the article,They used the fabricated material, Fitzgerald said, even though administrators at the free online encyclopedia quickly caught the quote's lack of attribution and removed it, but not quickly enough to keep some journalists from cutting and pasting it first.Also, at the time in which this error occurred, the article was clearly tagged as per wikipedia policy as being under construction and inviable for use.Since this unfortunate death was imminent, even though the vandalism was removed within minutes, journalists still quoted it without bothering to consider the vandalism tags at the top of the article.To quote the vandal himself,His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.B3 - This article is from 2010,when wikipedia was less developped, and focuses in on one unfortunate instance of biased editing with no widespread justification in showing that high ranking and active wikipedia editors (who do the majority of the editing on wikipedia) are significantly biased. The editor in question faced arbitration and received a revocation of adminship and a ban on all climate-related articles unanimously. [2]Since the wikipedia community unanimously agreed Mr. Connolley's edits were not supposed to be there and were intrusive vandalism, it is akin to Mr. Connolley scribbling his opinions with a sharpie inside of a non-digital encyclopedia or dictionary and proclaiming the source unreliable as a result of so.B4 - Again, the instance cited is from 2005, when wikipedia has no ongoing counter-vandalism mechanism or team to enforce the citation of points. This instance of incorrect information has no sway on wikipedia's current status, which is drastically more improved.The vast majority of misleading/vandalistic information on wikipedia is now automatically removed by bots. [3]B5 - Does my opponent suggests that an encylclopedia written by majorly males is inherently inviable?B6 - I do not understand what this has to do with the resolution. I do not know if my opponent is misunderstanding what "deletionist" means or if he is falsely interpreting a source.Deletionists and inclusionists are terms used to refer to the stance of wikipedians on the issue of whether content should ever be deleted if it is verifiable. They are not a "select group of people", and they have no "motto".This point has nothing to do with the debate, but to clarify to all readers from the point of view of someone engrossed in the wikipedia community:- Deletionists believe only reliable, notable, and inherently useful content should be harboured on wikipedia. If a subject is not notable (example: "The flowers in my back yard"), they would say it does not warrant the creation of an article. Thus, they are pro-deletion of content that does not meet certain criteriae regarding being able to be sources, proved notable, and proved useful.- Inclusionists believe all content should be kept on wikipedia as long as it can be proven because it is technically knowledge.Either way, these two factions of wikipedia editors have nothing to do with wikipedia's reliability, as both only support reliable content being added to the wiki.B7 - This link is not a wikipedia policy. It is an opinion essay written by a wikipedia contributor. It is tagged as such at the top of the page. Wikipedia has admitted nothing.B8 - My opponent suggests that, since teachers steer their students from wikipedia, it must not be viable. This is a slippery slope.He also uses a red herring. It doesn't matter who has written a second-hand article, as long as they display a competent ability to cite the first-hand studies and sources of others, they are equally credible.---------------------------------------------------For my opponent to prove his side of the BOP (Wikipedia is inviable and thus should not be considered viable), he would have to prove that wikipedia is so falsified that is incapable of successfully reasserting or verfiying a person's claim in most instances. He has failed to do so.He has named a few particular errors of thousands upon thousands of edits, which says nothing to wikipedia's validity.My opponent has failed in his duty of refuting my points, and in his duty of proving that wikipedia is incapable of verifying an assertion and thus inviable.[1] - (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...)[2] - (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[3] - (http://en.wikipedia.org...)