Wikipedia as a "Source" for debate
I'm a believer in Wikipedia, but as a "source" the jury is still out. The only real requirement for getting listed in Wiki is your information has to have been printed somewhere at least once. It doesn't matter if it was printed in a place that also didn't cite normal "sources verified" procedures... it just had to get printed. Then Wiki accepts it as a valid source.
That's convenient, but it's troublesome to me. I know the internet is changing and I suppose we have to change with it, in some ways. But I'm not sure I'm ready to accept as a valid source something ANYONE has ever said in writing when prior to this, only verified researched and supported citations were accepted as "proof of point". Wiki doesn't require that level of accountability, so I'm on the fence about Wiki citations in a debate.