Malcolm says, "the piece is a strange mixture of sensible analysis and utter nonsense....Wikipedia is not in itself a reliable source of information and articles in it carry no particular authority."

Allow me to endorse his words unequivocally. Wikipedia can be very useful, but only as a firststep. Referring to it as a source of knowledge is basically like asking a question of somebody at a party and then taking the answer as Truth from Above.

You gotta check everything with a named reliable source. Named authors don't want to be wrong (though of course they can be), while anonymous posters have little reason to care.

Unfortunately the level of thought and scholarship regarding traditional music (individual pieces especially) has been so wildly uneven over the decades that the relevant Wikipedia articles are probably even less trustworthy than most. Well-meaning but poorly informed fans love to post speculation as fact. My guess is that Mudcat is far more reliable than Wikipedia because skeptics seem quicker to respond here than at the Wiki.