"

 Section ""Reliability and bias"" 

Wikipedia appeals to the authority of peer-reviewed 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 (i.e., experts in government), see WP:RS#Exceptions. The idea probably was "".. rather than on the personal authority of experts contribution ot wikipedia"". In any case, what is ""the authority of peer-reviewed"" other than the sum of the personal authorities of peers? `'mikka 

A drawback of this citation-only 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 Encyclopédie, while independent historians say he was kicked out and even banged on his head for his bad job) Secondly, we have WP:RS in place to ensure that verifiably credible sources are cited.  `'mikka "