Section Reliability and bias   Wikipedia appeals to the authority of peerreviewed publications rather than the personal authority of experts IMO this statement is false as it stands Wikipedia can rely on personal authority of experts within their recognized area of expertize as well as on the authority of government officials ie experts in government see WPRSExceptions The idea probably was  rather than on the personal authority of experts contribution ot wikipedia In any case what is the authority of peerreviewed other than the sum of the personal authorities of peers    A drawback of this citationonly approach is that readers may be unable to judge the credibility of a cited source An opinion not a fact requires reference What is more this statement is dubious a drawback in comparison to what Do readers judge the credibility of EB authors They simply accustomed to believe in credibility of EB In fact in certain areas EB is biased as hell The most recent example that came to my attention is whitewashing their compatriot John Mills In frief EB says that Mills withdrew from the project of Encyclopdie while independent historians say he was kicked out and even banged on his head for his bad job Secondly we have WPRS in place to ensure that verifiably credible sources are cited