In an ideal world, one might ask Roth about that, and I can think of a few reasonable answers. In reality, it's just going to be fodder for the mob. Of course, primary sources can be wrong (though Bloomberg is a secondary source anyway). However, note this does not justify fetishizing secondary sources. Doctors can make mistakes, but they are far far better than quacks. The problem here is that scholarship tries to ask what's right, and the rules of Wikipedia ask what's widespread in the media, which can be very different (this point has been made above). Good scholarly practice is to weigh all sources carefully. Real Wikipedia practice is to edit-war relentlessly with the sources as tokens of status (ok, that's a slight joke, but only slightly).