In the unlikely case anyone interested has missed it: There are some troubles re mandatory in-line citing and science articles.

It all started with a warning put at large number of "good articles" that they will be delisted soon for lack of in-line cites. This immediately got the response, that standard textbooks facts are not and should not be in-line cited, the references section will name selected textbooks and one cannot judge the correctness without having some context anyway.

The main struggle seem to be played out by (a subset of) WikiProject Physics vs (a subset of) WikiProject Good Articles.

For an example of the amount of in-line cites requested see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_relativity&diff=781074...

For a list of places where discussion occur see below.

What worries me most about this incident, is the idea that proper and extensive in-line citing will allow anybody (the proverbial "layperson") to verify the contents of the article. The proponents of this position refer to the "any editor" in "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor".

In my not so humble opinion, in many articles of science (and elsewhere) this is a false and dangerous idea. You need some basic experise in the field to judge the reliability of sources, the selection of sources and even to see whether a statement in the article is the correct summary of a larger chapter in a source.

I cannot help but see some of the recent actions as an example of anti-academedic bias by factions withing Wikipedia.

Regards, [[User:Pjacobi]]

Linklist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_relativity#GA_Re-Review_and_In-lin... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_candidates#Discussi... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Another_reas... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#When_not_to_cite_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Physical_cosmology#Noncompliant