On 9/29/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Wikipedia has a unique _requirement_ for very dense references, _denser_ than those found in research papers or nonfiction books, so it is not surprising that traditional solutions are not perfect for Wikipedia, and that we will need to think of better approaches.
- "If it appears in numerous textbooks it does not need a citation."
This is silly. The problem is that there is no way the reader or anybody else can tell the difference between a sentence which lacks a reference _because somebody has checked_ to make sure that it appears in numerous textbooks, and a sentence which lacks a reference because_ someone just typed it in off the top of their head_. They look the same.
Yes, yes, yes. Our articles need to come in with a chip on their shoulders, as it were. There is no external reason to believe that what it says resembles the truth, no author or organization claiming responsibility for the text. The article needs to make a case for the information it presents being accurate. Don't just state facts, show the reader how they can confirm the accuracy of the statements. Trusting a Wikipedia article requres a leap of faith; we want to minimize the distance of that leap.