On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:21 AM, FT2<ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
The issue I'd expect is much more, mis-citing -
statements not in the text,
or mischaracterized, that linger weeks or months because now click-and-check
isn't operational and very few people will look up "New York Times 19 July
2009 P.4B" (however theoretically they can find a copy) whereas many would
click the link.
Same applies to references to books. Those only get checked thoroughly
when the article reaches featured article candidacy status. And I
shudder to think of the duplicated effort in checking references. It
would be great if you could look through an article and see that 5
people you trusted had ticked off most of the references as
"verified". You could then check the rest, plus spot that some vandal
who managed to get the "permissions level" had wrongly marked a bogus
reference as "verified".
Trouble is, that sort of system (kind of a "flagged revisions" for
references) would be rather complicated.
Carcharoth