Any claim with a URI should also be treated with suspicion. There is plenty of reliable information locked away in offline books and government documents and a

Any claim with a URI should also be treated with suspicion. There is plenty of reliable information locked away in offline books and government documents and all kinds of other non Google-able locations. This is true even for brand new information (which is why we continue to have “leaks”). Meanwhile there is plenty of misinformation with URIs. I would go so far as to say online status is almost orthogonal to accuracy, except that in theory at least online information is more readily disproven. (Never mind that the whole core example of the article is off. The sketchy unsourced image also has a URI.)