Sorry Sven, but
1. Most of the authors on internet websites have no professional careers, thus if they write wrong/and or biased information nothing happens to them, they don't have a career to lose.
What that's supposed to mean? Someone who writes on the internet does sloppy research? I can throw hundreds of scientific books at you with bad research.
2. The information isn't critiqued before hadn by a publisher.
Publishers most of the time hardly know anything about the historical periods. An acquittance of mine made a book covering (part of) the Crimea war based entirely on primary sources, and the publisher kept making notes that came down to 'That didn't happen like that, I was thought that in high school'. Publishers check if the book is going to be sold well, not if things are historicaly correct. The publisher of previously mentioned book actually made a note that the book might be too 'anti-British' as it made short work of the various myths concerning the Crimea, and that made result in negative reactions. The author was, by the way, British.
3. Most of the writers on the web are unreliable in themselves.
That's a pretty shabby argument. It doesn't even mean something. 'You can't be trusted because you can't be trusted'.
Psst im gonna hop in here to ask you where you get the source for cocaine pills issued to ACW soldiers? Only heard of doctors giving opiums during surgery.
Historic magazine. If you are sure that it didn't happen, I believe you. I never did much research into it, I just remembered it when people start talking about drugs.
