This is really a key point that renders 90% of the discussion of this moot (bringing in a primary source to resolve it, too!). From reading that, it appears th

This is really a key point that renders 90% of the discussion of this moot (bringing in a primary source to resolve it, too!). From reading that, it appears that there was just a misunderstanding -- all the author had to do was link in the wikipedia article to the reliable sources. Instead, he linked on his blog to the reliable sources. To me, this simple misunderstanding pretty much makes the Chronicle article lose all credence -- if I'm reading a wikipedia article and I find a factual assertion dubious (or just wonder where it came from) I don't want a link to some blog (especially since it appears that I can't even read the link -- I get some sort of login page). Instead, I want the link (or reference) to the original sources. For factual disagreements, any sort of primary or reliable secondary source is more than sufficient to have resolved this.