Hmmm... or is it just more that it might be
embarrassing that the
actual article sources are not that authoritative? (indeed perhaps
just coming from a website!)
Wikipedia's detractors aren't making stuff up out of thin air, often
merely drawing on, and exaggerating, the cases where we fail.
I would suggest that in many cases where sources are not cited, it's
because they aren't good sources. And this happens all the time on
less scrutinised Wikipedia articles.
Doesn't mean it's not plagiarism though to use someone else's work and
not accredit it just because it's awkward for you to do so.
But plagiarism is the founding principle of Wikipedia! ;)
Okay, not quite. But if there had been strict requirements
on using good references in the proper way from the
beginning I wonder if the project would ever have gotten
off the ground.
Maybe it would have, just a bit more slowly, and be all
the better for it. I honestly don't know.
Regards,
Haukur