On 30/06/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Like many dilemmas faced by Wikipedia, we need to do several things: cite the references actually used; cite easily accessed sources of information, especially online sources; and point the reader to the seminal articles and authorities in the field. These categories need to be set forth in clearly identifiable sections.
Notes [explanatory footnotes and specific references to sources - Jones, p. 39]
Sources [works actually used]
Further reading [stuff you need to look at for better coverage, or for another angle, or for related topics]
Both of the latter sections can happily be discursive - there's nothing wrong with "further reading" being a few hundred words of running text on what this covers versus that, or with "sources" containing notes on which ones seem more reliable...
See, eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bover for a discursive sources section.
On an obscure topic, sources and further reading may be the same - "I have used every significant work I could find".