Kwork, my total approach to Wikipedia is 'caveat emptor.' If I see something and it's important to ascertain the real validity, I check out the talk pages first, and see what's happening there, and I always realize the whole experiment must be taken with a grain of salt.
If I put together such a good presentation as you, I would have noted some of the uncertainty about the provenances on the talk page and left it at that.
I wouldn't trust Wikipedia information so far as to invest money, write a thesis or paper, or bet my life on. Experience teaches me how much credence to give. As a guide to stuff I need to check out elsewhere, it serves pretty well. There's no shortage of valid criticism of Wiki and I give all that heavy credence also.
Since I impose such heavy caveats on myself, I assume others with sense do also, and that leaves me with fewer axes to grind. That doesn't stop me from editing some total bs articles, however! (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
New totally-Wikipedia site, Another modest website
Jumper New totally-Wikipedia site 
