I make no secret of finding Wikipedia a dubious source at best, and have made my case many times. (Cf "Why I Won't Be Contributing to Wikipedia", "The Taxonomy of Trivia", "The Tragedy of the Creative Commons") However, I can still be surprised at how far some sections go in passing off suspect information. And this morning I stumbled across one more example.

I never really thought much about the etymology of "Gaul". It seemed obvious that "Gaul" was related to the Roman name "gallia", which derived from the same Celtic root as "Gael". It had long been so written in many of the older works I read, and it was so obvious as to seem a truism. However, today, I was wondering exactly how the word "oui" came to mean "yes", as it seemed to out of character with either Germanic (ja, yes) or romance(si, sim), that I was curious where it originated. And, in the course of tracking down an etymology, I ended up reading Wikipedia, where I found this bizarre claim:

The English Gaul and French: Gaule, Gaulois are unrelated to Latin Gallia and Galli, despite superficial similarity. They are rather derived from the Germanic term walha, "foreigner, Romanized person", an exonym applied by Germanic speakers to Celts, likely via a Latinization of Frankish *Walholant "Gaul", literally "Land of the Foreigners/Romans", making it partially cognate with the names Wales and Wallachia), the usual word for the non-Germanic-speaking peoples (Celtic-speaking and Latin-speaking indiscriminately). The Germanic w is regularly rendered as gu / g in French (cf. guerre = war, garder = ward), and the diphthong au is the regular outcome of al before a following consonant (cf. cheval ~ chevaux). Gaule or Gaulle can hardly be derived from Latin Gallia, since g would become j before a (cf. gamba > jambe), and the diphthong au would be unexplained; the regular outcome of Latin Gallia is Jaille in French which is found in several western placenames

Not just that claim, but I found it, supported by the same handful of citations on every page related to Gaul, in almost the same wording.
 
Now, this struck me as pretty far fetched, as it meant that the French decided to use an obscure Germanic word to describe their land, which just happened to match precisely the Roman and pre-Roman name for that land. That is like claiming the Angles settled in England, but it is so named, not because of them, but because of the sharp corners found at Land's End and Cape Wrath (Angle-land).

Since there was one citation to a philologist, and a cite to the OED's etymological version (though the link just went to a wiki page about thew book, not an actual page with content), I began to doubt myself just a little. But, even if the Frankish word was the origin, which I doubted, didn't it seem likely it was a Frankish derivative from Gallia, rather than an independent word? The coincidence is just too much. Many words are similar, but usually they have different meanings, or, if they are the same, there is usually a common ancestor. The few exceptions, such as Greek "theou"/"theo" and Aztec/meso-American "teo" both meaning "G-d", it is simply because they are very short words which are used for common concepts or objects. So, while it is not completely impossible for this etymology to be accurate, it seemed VERY unlikely.

And so, I decided to search outside of Wikipedia, as it seemed that Wikipedia had either a single editor with a particular fixation, or else, as I have seen elsewhere, a single side in an academic dispute has gained currency, and thus is presented as established fact. Whatever the case, I decided to search a bit more.

And the first etymology I found convinced me I was right:

Gallic

1670s, from L. Gallicus "pertaining to Gaul or the Gauls," from L. Gallia "Gaul" and Gallus "a Gaul" from a native Celtic name (see Gaelic), though some connect the word with prehistoric W.Gmc. *walkhoz "foreigners" (see Welsh). 

Now, this recognizes the possible Frankish origin, but presents it as a minority opinion. And that sounds right to me, as it does seem highly suspect, and the few claims about how Roman words MUST be imported into French seemed as trustworthy as all such claims. (Such as the impossibility of a tie between Gotar, Goth, Getae and Geat because of linguistics, which some academics support and an equal number claim is nonsense.)

Now, I am not saying that the second etymology is correct, nor am I arguing that the first must be wrong. As I said, it is possible the first is right, though it seems to me the second is simply much more believable. But this does point out the problems of Wikipedia, to be precise two of them.

First, an editor with a strong viewpoint on an issue which matters to few enough others can run the show, inserting his pet issue into the encyclopedia at will without any criticism, and without anyone insisting he present the other side. Which means anyone looking up the topic, which most do because they don't know anything about it, will be either misinformed, or at least given a very one sided perspective.

Second, it is sometimes impossible, thanks to Wikipedia's bizarre rules of evidence, to support common sense positions. It is easy to find citations for the odd Frankish etymology, but, though I found one citation, it is much more difficult to find citations for facts which are simply self evident. As I said, it may be hard to prove, to Wikipedia's satisfaction, that things fall down not up, as it is so well known no one bothers to record that fact in a source which we can cite, leaving us with just the "Original Research" of our senses, which Wikipedia finds unacceptable.

Not that this is the worst of Wikipedia's sins, but it does show quite well how Wikipedia, unlike most commercial encyclopedias, can easily give a misleading, one sided, yet seemingly authoritative impression, leading those who use it as a reference to think they know the truth, when they simply are quit well informed on a minority position, or, in some cases, on a position held by only a handful of cranks, though cranks who publish often enough to have a ready source of citations.

POSTSCRIPT

I have one final objection to the "foreigners" etymology based on simple logic. The Celts/Gauls controlled most of central and western Europe for several centuries before the Germani tribes were pushed westward in that specific wave of migrations. In almost every other historical context, the people who immigrated into a region did not call the established residents "foreigners". If anything, the migrants accepted that appellation themselves. (Look at the waves of invasions in Greece, for one example.) As the Franks continued to migrate westward, moving into central Germany, then the lands of the Belgae, then into Gaul proper, it seems far more likely they would be seen as foreign, rather than see non-German speakers as "foreign".  The designation of all others as "barbarians" or "foreigners" is more a trait of settled groups, such as Greeks, so it just seems odd that the Franks would so designate the Gauls. (Though, I suppose it is possible if the Gauls were the first foreigners they met in Europe, they would describe all foreigners as Gauls, as the Moslems in the near east called all crusaders "franj" as they met the French first. But then this word derives from the Gaulish word for "Gaul" in the long run and makes this silly etymology moot.)