I read with interest Erik Moeller's note about sources on Wikipedia: Wikipedia’s core problem is not expertise, it’s self-selection. He quotes the following paragraph from the article about Mitt Romney:
Romney was sworn in as the 70th governor of Massachusetts on January 2, 2003, along with Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. Within one year of taking office, Romney eliminated a 3 billion dollar budget deficit. During this time he did not raise taxes or debt. He also proceeded to end his term with a 1 billion dollar surplus as well as lower taxes and a lower unemployment rate.
Erik pointed out that the cited source was the Mitt Romney for president campaign, and then worried about the self-selection of Wikipedia contributors.
I think he's on the wrong track. I don't think the sources of Wikipedia articles matter that much, if the text is readable, true, neutral and verifiable. The part that really made me cringe, in the above paragraph, was the awkward construction He also proceeded to end his term... Awful. I've streamlined the sentence to He ended his term with a 1 billion dollar surplus, lower taxes and a lower unemployment rate.
As I tried to explained in my unfinished essay on Readers and writers on Wikipedia, I think that as Wikipedians we concentrate far too much on the agenda and rights of contributors, and far too little on the readability and usefulness of the articles themselves. I think WP is going to become more professional when more Wikipedians practice their writing skills than their rule-making skills. We should concentrate on the quality of the output, not on the source of the input.