Unaccessible citations

Science is important, but if I have two citations on hand, and one of them is easily accessible, while the other one is not, I'm going to cite the accessible one.

I feel a bit sorry for the author (maybe they did not have any choice). I also realize that most probably I'm not "punishing" the publisher at all, because they simply don't care (especially in case of old publications, when citations do not affect the impact factor anymore). But still there's an emotional component to it. You're not giving me this 1975 paper, even though you clearly have a PDF version of it, and our university has access to your jornal? Fine! I'll just cite the latest review!

At the same time I wonder if there's any incentive at all for the publishers to put their old papers online. Right now I can not think of any, and it is kind of sad. Without references to old papers new publications become kind of boring: too mechanistic, arrogant, and shallow. It's like a case of anterograde amnesia, when a person kind of keeps the discussion going, but does not remember anything about the global picture anymore. Also in behavioral sciences even papers from 1960s may be directly relevant to your current research, because animals were the same back then as they are now, and the descriptions of their behavior are probably still quite valid.

So, while for new papers the invisible hand of the market can, in principle, encourage authors to publish in open-access journals, old papers are simply left behind.

Should I reference it?

I'm now writing a paper, and in it I'll be using a certain FDR (False Discovery Rate) statistical procedure. It's a clever and not-too-conservative way to adjust for multiple comparisons, and to keep P-values in check. You should absolutely use it in your work if you have not being doing it yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_discovery_rate

But what I don't quite understand here is whether I need to reference the original papers in which the FDR method was described for the first time, or not.

The method is not too old: both papers that justify it were published in 1995 (see 2 first references in the Wikipedia article). At the same time by now this method is kind of known, and used, and based on the Google Scholar statistics the firsts paper of these two has an impressive number of 15582 citations. That's a lot! Does it mean that I can afford not referencing it?

Also would the fact that the Wikipedia article is that nicely written, and comes as the first result in Google Search, affect my decision?

Generally, what are the criteria? When do you stop referencing a methodological paper like this one?