On 30/06/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)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".
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk