"6 other accredited sources"
I don't know what you mean by "accredited", but accumulating sources seems pointless to me. Rather than having a long list of sources you're better off having a single source that you properly understand: you know the author, you've looked at how and where the author gets his/her information, you've looked at some of the author's sources, and so on. Basically I'd advocate a depth-first approach (trace a chain of citations back to an original source and try to understand the motivations of each author along the chain) rather than a truncated breadth-first approach (here are a dozen people I've never heard of who seem to be saying the same thing; must be true, right?).
An example to think about (but don't bother discussing it here please): Did Osama Bin Laden plan the attack on the World Trade Center? Did he even know about it beforehand? The truth can be discovered in an hour or two with a web browser, but how many people are capable of doing that?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
