On 23/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Come to think
of it, breaking it down by source area might be more
useful - {{newspaper cite needed}}; {{journal cite needed}}?
Sounds like an open invitation to the querulous. "You have a source
but I'm going to be arsey about it and say so obnoxiously in the
article text."
Mmm, true. On the other hand, {{news cite needed}} would probably be a
practical addition to any topic-based system - "In 1998, it was
reported that the company was facing bankruptcy.{{fact}}".
I was thinking more broken into the same sort of
categories as stub
sorting. What triggered this thought this time around was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupus_vulgaris - there's a "[citation
needed]" there which an expert could probably fill in off the top of
their head, but there's no mechanism by which the expert would be
directed to it.
Sourced and cited - though here I wonder if {{etymology cite needed}}
would have been more efficient than {{medicine cite needed}} ;-)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk