When I'm in an argument, I like to present my sources. Sometimes, this is in the form of a Wikipedia link. Usually, I'm given the response of something along the lines of "BUT MERIBAN!! WIKIPEDIA ISN'T RELIABLE, ANYONE CAN EDIT IT!!" Earth to dipshit: Yeah, anyone can edit it, but the thing is that the articles are usually well-sourced, and anything not sourced is either given a "citation needed" or it's just removed entirely. You can check the sources listed in the article by clicking the numbers. It's not hard.
Yet still, everyone seems to have this mentality that Wikipedia isn't "reliable" and that everything on it is 100% bullshit, because you're "allowed" to put anything on Wikipedia. Now sure, entirely relaying on Wikipedia to be 100% accurate is completely stupid, but otherwise the whole "Wikipedia = bad" mentality is likewise also completely idiotic.
If Wikipedia isn't considered a valid source, what *is* considered a valid source then? Surely not some random BuzzFeed or Huffington Post poll, but I commonly see these in arguments. Is there some specific reason that Wikipedia has a stigma for being "unreliable", or is it just because "umg you can edit it that must meen people put bullpoopie on it!!!!"
I'm not saying that Wikipedia is 100% reliable and that it doesn't get vandalized. It does. It's not fully reliable, but there's no reason to dismiss a completely valid article on something simply because "anyone can edit it". When someone dismisses my argument because I used a Wikipedia source, they basically say to me "I'm full of shit and I have no way to refute your argument, so I'm just gonna scream that it's not valid instead!"
Fuck morons who immediately dismiss anything you have to say because "muh invalid source".
