As the person who started this one running some time ago I would like to offer some comments I referred to an unsourced entry in Wikipedia because I had come across it, it may have been relevant to the topic and it may have produced someone who did have a source for it. Wikipedia has all the virtues and all the vices of the internet and of humanity. It is not a primary source. It is of variable quality, as are books and journals. You may need to apply more critical thinking when using sources from the internet, but you don't turn off that facility just because something is on paper. For "amateurs" such as myself, (MA Cantab) who do not have easy access to academic libraries the internet can be a good source of material. The posting of primary material enables data to be found found via good search strategies that would never be found in a paper library. The real tragedy of the internet is that there are enormous resources out there beyond Wikipedia which are little used. The Education Minister here in England has just encouraged pupils to use Wikipedia because "they don't have access to traditional sources". It seems that nobody told him that in Somerset where I live if you have a public library card you have online access to, inter alia, OED, DNB, Grove (Music and Art), Britannica (3 levels), The Times and various OUP journals.