And, on the other hand, we have scientists who graduated from Ivy League schools contributing to Wikipedia for the benefit of others. Some people are willing to sacrifice hours every day to make Wikipedia the best it can be, even though they can't hope to get any career or monetary benefit from it. It's quite an insult to these volunteers to denounce an article or a piece of information simply because it happened to be on Wikipedia.
The graph in question was based on reputable sources, which Hanno cited, and is no less reliable than those sources. That said, the journal's use of the image is highly questionable. First of all it violates Wikimedia Commons' license on the image (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
), which says:
"You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform."
"You must...keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide...to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI"
Second, how hard could did possibly have been to check Hanno's sources and redraw the graph? I agree that this belies the author's extreme laziness.