From: "charles matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com

"Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote

...

The reliability of the source is relatively less important. The only real problem occurs when the "source" is, in fact, another entity like Wikipedia--one in which the identity and credentials of the contributor are not easy to assess.

Or an average nineteenth century historian.

Not at all.

I take your remark to mean that you regard "an average nineteenth century historian" as an unreliable source. Fine. That doesn't make it an inappropriate source.

If you see something in Wikipedia and it's not sourced, you don't know what to think. If you see something in Wikipedia and it's sourced to someone you recognize as an average nineteenth century historian, you do know what to think and can give it the amount of credence you consider appropriate.

There is an enormous difference between an unsourced statement and one that is sourced to, say, the National Review. Or The Progressive. Or, for that matter, the National Enquirer.