Is wikipedia a reliable source?

I think that its reliable for definitions don't know if its good for learning about events in history

No, it is not.

It is however a decent place to go for preliminary research on most topics, to then use the reliable sources from which it draws.

Yeah, what Ragnar said.

its a good starting point

It is a hub that will lead to more primary sources. Wiki is a secondary source and isn't as authentic.

Struck me as being a tad contradictory.

It is either reliable or it is not.

If it is not reliable, then it is not "a decent place to go".

Doc Franklin summed it up much better.

And any general compilation of information for reference use, is obviously going to be a secondary source. It's the nature of the beast, as it were.

Wiki is an excellent quick reference source.

And it amuses me that people knock it. 

A tad pretentiously, me thinks.

There is no contradiction.

That something is not reliable for every single purpose, does not mean it is not a decent place to go for others.

That's a completely different answer. 

That problem rests with your reading comprehension skills.

Or your honesty.

If you're correct, then please explain the difference between "decent place to go" and "decent place to go"? As a reminder, you're the one insisting those are  "completely different" answers, and moreover that it's outright dishonest to say otherwise.

AKA, prove that A ≠ A. That is the task you assigned yourself when you insisted it was dishonest to claim that A = A.

Is it?.....No it isn't.....Yes it is.

Make your mind up.

Please tell me you're just pretending to be this poorly educated? If not, here's a useful starter for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFukHtFBNGY

Anyone who is not functionally illiterate reading post #2, would see negative to the topic question (as in no, it's not a reliable source to list in a debate or academic paper), with then expansions for something else to which it is useful (finding other sources which may prove be reliable).

That you cannot understand no to one thing but yes to something else, is seriously troubling.

Thank you for that youtube link it really helped me

Please do not tell me that you're denying responsibility for the overt contradictions of #2.

Is the Pope a reliable Catholic. 

No he is not.

He is however a decent Catholic to go to for preliminary research into Catholicism, to then use as a reliable preliminary source of Catholicism, which he draws form a reliable source.

LOL.  If the decent preliminary source isn't reliable, then the reliable source is also unlikely to be reliable.

That you cannot understand that yes and no to the same question is contradictory, is troubling.

I think what ragnar is saying is that you shouldn't go to wikipedia to become knowledgeable on a subject but it is good for getting a rough understanding of said subject or for definitions.

I think that is what Ragnar probably wishes they had said.

But it wasn't actually what they said....Far from it.

As Ragnar well knows.

And what you called "a completely different answer":

I bolded direct shared words for you which you claim are "completely different." Of course you also declared it to be a lie that they have any similarities.

Everyone else here understood it easily. You even praised one for later paraphrasing it down to "its a good starting point" [sic].

Not all debate criticisms against Wikipedia are valid though. If you use it to set the terms of your debate,  Your opponent should not have grounds for saying they should get the source point because you used Wikipedia and they didn't. 

Sources for a definition when your setting the terms of the debate are not sources being used to back up or support claims they are not part your arguments, they are merely the terms of the debate.  If I'm not going to write out what DNA is for debate where DNA is in the resolution but I don't care to write out a full scientific summery on it and Wikipedia's page seems adequate enough at defining what needs said about it when setting the terms of the debate, then Wikipedia should be considered as valid a source to use IN THAT CONTEXT as any other source, because round one definitions are not arguments or claims, they are the terms of the debate.

But yeah as a source for making claims or supporting arguments during the rest of the debate, Wikipedia and blog posts should be avoided if at all possible. Don't directly source them unless your prepared to spend time arguing why you are justifying Wikipedia as your source in this context.  For example "Falcom has a passionate fan base for the trails series" might be your resolution or the point your making to support some other resolution, and to prove the passion of the fan base, show the Wikipedia page to demonstrate the level of effort and detail fans have kept together for the Trails series  on Wikipedia. Suddenly even though Wikipedia is a secondary source to the facts you find collected together on it and is not reliable because its subject to heavy community editing and user mistakes, in the context of trying to make a point about the people who ARE using and editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia can become a relevant form of evidence in and of itself.

This was  Doc Franklins independent and singular assessment, so therefore not contradictory and  not a paraphrase.

Is an emphatic statement. 

Therefore a following statement that proposes that wikipedia is a decent place to go, undeniably contradicts the previous statement.

#2 is the post in question.

And bravo your loyal supporters....But they are just loyally supporting you....And loyal support cannot change the aforementioned contradiction.

The End.

A decent place to go for something else... As has been repeatedly explained to you. 

Seriously, are you 12 or younger? Your poor grasp of the English language, is strongly suggesting that.

zedvictor is a user who does nothing else on this website than specifically misinterpret posts by others to troll and trigger them. You must be new to his trolling if you're reacting this strongly, I just block and move on.

HaHa.

Ethanesque jibing changes nothing.

@RatMan

If only you could block and move on.

Go give Raggy a hug....And tell him that Uncle Zed is sorry for pointing out his glaring contradiction, and causing him so much anxiety.

I promise not to mention it again.

Raggy, Ratty, and the big contradiction. (Featuring the nasty Uncle Zed)

Could be the woke sequel to The Wind in the Willows.

And Ratty.....You do always have the option of ignoring me.

And you Raggy.

Give it a go.....Ignorance is bliss....Or so it is said.

I take Wiki at its own word.

Caveat lector

I admit due to having basically had to teach myself reading and writing, it saddens me when someone fails at it so miserably.

Jibe.

Yes it is.

Wiki is the best online quick research tool.

There was a study showing it was just as reliable as the encyclopedia brittainica. It's reliable for general information. Once you dig deeper you are relying on original sources anyway, so not sure why anyone would say it isn't reliable.