On 6/30/07, Chris Lüer chris@zandria.net wrote:
At 03:09 PM 6/30/2007, Fred Bauder 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.
For (1) we have the References section, for (2) we have the External links section (the two often overlap, of course). For seminal articles etc. we need a new section. Maybe call it Literature? Unlike the other two, it should not just list sources, but actually discuss them.
We already have a system in place for providing bibliographies. The Further reading section lists online and paper resources for people who want to read more about the topic. If you also maintain a References section, where the sources you used are listed in alphabetical order, as well as a Notes section for inline citations and comments, then it's easy to see what all the reading material is. See WP:CITE here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE#Maintaining_a_separate_.22References.22... and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE#Further_reading.2FExternal_links
For example, the Notes section of [[Rudolf Vrba]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Vrba#Notes contains a mixture of inline citations and commentary; the References section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Vrba#References repeats the citations in alphabetical order so that readers can see at a glance what was used; and the Further reading section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Vrba#Further_reading lists interesting material not used as a source.
Sarah