On 7/11/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What if the
material is accurate and can be checked with a quick
The burden of proof is always on the person adding the information.
Not to the extent of removeing the material.
"Source" does not mean "somewhere which
can be used to verify the
information", it means "the place where the information came from".
Only the person that added the information actually knows the source,
so they should be the one citing sources.
However we use the word references rather than sources.
The whole idea of adding
sources to existing articles is completely backward. We need to work
on getting people to actually *use* reliable sources, not just cite
them. If people were actually using the sources then they could cite
them as they went along with almost no additional work.
Depends. Refing [[Stroudwater Navigation]] was a pain in the neck even
though I had the main source in front of me the whole time.
[[Canal#Features]] would be much more of a pain. The problem is that
it jumps between levels of complexity so some you would be looking at
citeing from a school textbook and others from wighter tomes.
The effort required is such that if I was required to do it that
article would still look like this
Which isn't really B class despite the claims on the talk page (I
would argue the current version is just about).