--- George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're misinterpreting that. It would be good if every fact in WP was referenced.
But are all references the same? How do we distinguish between references?
"References" seems to include to other web pages which people can quickly verify but may not be quite authoritative. Voluminous books which may be considered authoritative but might only found in the dusty libraries of elite collections.
Face it: even where a source is extremely old, and therefore considered "canonical" such often show the limitations and biases of the time and culture wherin they were written. Note the difference between a reference and a quotation, either by a respected philosopher whose codification has come to be a canonical one, or by a claimed authority on the subject. There is a huge subjective variance here.
For example, Augustine, who had no physics credentials whatsoever, was perhaps the first to explain the nature of time as having 'begun with the creation of the universe, before which there was no time.' His assertion was based in religious terms of course, but nevertheless came some years before physical theories. Is he not an "authority"? Or is he not a canonical authority?
I have toyed with the idea of an underlying data structure for listing facts (factual claims, referenced facts). Over time, it would be good if there were a slow evolution towards nearly everything being referenced, well referenced and multiply referenced if possible.
Good. There was that Wikidata idea out there a couple years back...
Just because something hasn't had references added to date, doesn't mean we should inherently mistrust it or throw the articles out or anything. This is in a sense the ultimate "leave something for others" project aspect...
Well said.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com