On Feb 27, 2007, at 5:19 AM, John Lee wrote:
The trouble I have with the citation fetish is that it goes overboard. For example, let's say that I have two or three core sources for an article - webpages written by published and respected authors and experts in the field. Does it make sense to cite these pages for every little detail in the article, or does it make sense to collate them in one section titled as references? I would argue that it is the latter that matters, but the inline citation fetishists have succeeded in making the typical reading of our guidelines closer to the former. As Phil (I think) noted not too long ago, one article even has a footnote for the name of the article's subject! This only makes sense if the name is a disputable/unique detail (e.g. [[Jeff Ooi]] is always known as Jeff Ooi to most Malaysians, but his legal name is Ooi Chuan Aun, so it makes sense to provide a citation for the latter in the lead).
I think we need to distinguish among three tiers of information.
1) Needs a citation 2) Would be nice if it had a citation 3) Doesn't need a citation.
Remove all of #1 that lacks a citation. Leave #2 and #3 alone, adding them if you have them handy. But it's non-essential.
-Phil