Eventually this community needs to work out its way of working with MEDLANDS better, which everyone seems to refer to as FMG. Currently the Euroaristo project names this source above all others as a reference point, and to me this seems wrong. Normally, if MEDLANDS differs from good quality publications, we should be careful about MEDLANDS in my opinion.
FMG hosts MEDLANDS as a project, but MEDLANDS is basically the work of one person doing a lot of work, Charles Cawley.
Wikitree cites MEDLANDS a lot, I suppose because it is a handy website with many things in one place, but those genealogies are changing constantly, so our links are useless or worse. It is not a reference work, and very often Charles is not even looking at secondary works which have already solved the problems he has not yet solved. MEDLANDS can be handy if you use it as a work in progress which tries to collect lots of notes about primary sources. (That seems to be the main aim, collecting primary sources. For this it is very useful.)
I know that many well-known medieval genealogists are very critical of the website, and/or critical of FMG for hosting it without more warnings about its nature. But I would say good on Charles for his hard work. I have corresponded with him over the years and seen how he is constantly improving. Still, I think we are using it wrongly?