From:
"Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
That site is clearly not authoritative on the activities of the younger
Bush. It is, however, authoritative on the expressed opinions of the
anonymous kook who wrote that piece.
It's clearly not authoritative on Bush to you and me. But to the
person who cites this (or similar) articles, it is no doubt quite
authoritative on Bush, and everything else as well. This problem
doesn't go away simply because you feel comfortable making
pronouncements on what a specific website is authoritative on.
I think you're mistaking Wikipedia for a website that has unprecedented
control over the ability of the reader to make a judgement.