Charles Matthews wrote:
Ta bu shi da yu wrote
What I'm
suggesting is that if the press references one of our articles on the
press source page that we can absolutely make sure that our references
are up to scratch and our facts correct.
I think this is going to be a standard pressure that WP is under, from here
to eternity: fact check everything, footnote everything, generally be
academic-level research provided gratis by volunteers.
Nothing wrong with beling reliable. The footnoted style doesn't read so
well - try some examples and see. WP will never be in serious competition
with those having five years to write a Ph.D. on a topic.
One thing that I've mentiioned before was the idea of double
synchronized boxes. The one on the left could be for the text of the
article; the one on the right for footnotes, translations or whatever
other dependent data might be desired. Keeping the right one open would
be at the user's option for those who just want a good read of the
article. The relative width of the two could be variable. I just don't
know how technically feasible the concept is.
If we're going to have academic quality documentation, it would need to
be as easy to do as our current basic wiki markup.
Ec