Real brains are being replaced by fake penises.

"but on mainstream quality papers?"

Wiki or not, lists of quotations are always suspect. Citation is usually poor or non-existant and misattribution/fabrication is common.

The underlying problem is that you can't do real research for every obituary. You're talking about current events with a very long history behind them. How many hours would it take to find a Jarre quotation worthy of inclusion without using Wikiquote or other unprofessional sources? This is why CNN researches and writes obituaries for public figures while they're still alive.

@Ted: Yes, Wikipedia has some flaws but on the whole it is actually a good quick reference for information. Anything that doesn't have a source is listed as so, also anyone can go click on the sources listed for a given page.

I invite anyone to try this. Go look up something you know a good deal about and see how accurate the information looks. Usually it is spot on.

If it was in Wikipedia, it must be true...

This just goes to show how many quality journalists there are out there in the mainstream media. Can't these guys/gals do their own research or at least verify their "facts" instead of having to rely on an unreliable Wikipedia?

This is the exact reason I do not use such garbage as that. One never knows if they are reading fact or fiction. If I have to verify everything I read from there, I may as well spend the time researching my own (real) facts from more proven reliable resources.