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