I think this can lead to the Wikipedia fallacy. If you reduce the credibility of information when you can perceive a means whereby the information could be compromised, you end up placing undue weight upon non-transparent information sources.

People don't trust Wikipedia because anyone could have written it yet place more trust in books that may just have a veneer of authenticity.

And the fix for either is peer review. Obviously, a forefront-expert in a given field may not have the luxury of peers, making peer review more difficult, but as sub-peers attempt to dissect the work, they learn, and the more that attempt to dissect, the more sub-peers are elevated to an extent that they can either debunk or give approval.

Isn't that just a perception problem? If a source isn't transparent about their methods and biases then the standard should be even higher for demonstrating truth because we have no choice but to assume the worst forms of bias.