::: Apologies for not keeping Giano properly amused. I can tell you what to do when someone adds a dubious claim to a well cited article. Check their edits against the citation. If they don't agree, the claim is wrong. That works equally well if the claim is bogus or if the source is. That way we don't have to worry whether the editor has a doctorate in theology or is merely diligent at using Google; we don't care if they're an expert, merely if their sources are. If they don't give a citation, that stands out as something that should be cited, tagged, or removed. Wikipedia is not reliable in and of itself, specifically because anonymous mice can edit - and don't think I'm saying that's a bad thing, that's the reason I am allowed to be here, after all. However, it does mean that proper attribution is the only thing we have that can give articles that reliability. That doesn't mean citing every sentence, but it does mean that when someone doubts a fact, it is only assuming good faith to believe that doubt, and be able to reference that fact. Frankly, assuming that every educated reader already knows that a 1570 book inspired architects across Europe is common knowledge is attributing quite a lot to common knowledge.