On 12/26/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/26/06, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/26/06, Steve Bennett
<stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's
pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
Jay.
And it goes above and beyond just WP. Citations of claims,
inferences/conclusions/derived statements, and non-obvious factual
statements (that is, not common knowledge [taking the arbitrary nature
of "common knowledge" into consideration, of course]) are simply an
academic "must" if you aim to be taken seriously. That's how I
interpret relevant Wikipedia policies, and how I apply them.
That's the point; if Wikipedia is going to become a source of
knowledge that is taken seriously, instead of being continually
derided, its standards are going to be have to be high, rather than
"it's ridiculous that I should have to cite all of my claims".