[WikiEN-l] Well, that's interesting...

[Luna]

It could be an issue, yes, but I have a feeling there's not much we (or
perhaps anybody in this situation) can do or should do beyond striving to
offer the best services possible. Which we should really be doing, anyway.
Readers should be critical of what they read and whom they trust. There are
cues we can give to draw attention to specific issues -- citation-needed
templates, and the like.

I believe there's been some discussion in press circles about using
Wikipedia as a source, whether tacitly or not. It does seem to be useful as
a "universal backgrounder" (forget who said that), but I hope people don't
go relying on us exclusively.

Most definitions of "authoritativeness" I'm aware of seem circular, at least
at some level. A source might be considered authoritative if other sources
or people consider it to be so, by linking or citing it. In that context, I
just take the links as a sign people find us useful, and that's a good sign
from my seat.

-Luna