I am really impressed with the quality (and sunstance) of the debate on this. I agree with Rick that citations can get out of hand, and I also agree with others, who say that "non-clickable" citations are also quite good (references to books, or other sources of information). This is what I want: a hierarchy of citations. If it ever gets to the point (I think it VERY rarely will) where an article has too many citations, making it take up too much room, or it clutters too much (this would seem to be aleviated by putting them at the bottom of the page, but whatever) then you simply raise the standard. As I said in my original suggestion, the quality expected of citations should be based on the number of them presented. What is REALLY important to me is that differing citations be allowed, so long as they are from reliable sources (and such reliability should be based on the investigations of interested parties, perhaps even a "citation arbitration board" could be formed, if ever needed, to judge qualities of citations) and that differing interpretations be allowed, expressing that "some hold XYZ POV based on ABC interpretation of [1] information, but others...". This would be wonderful, and would definately improve the information quality, as well as the egalitarian acceptance of all legitamate (based on citation) POV's as being legitamately worth hearing (and IMO, drastically reduce disputes among non-troll editors). I am NOT saying everything needs to be cited, only things which are disputed should have to be. But the more citations the better, IMO. JackLynch

_________________________________________________________________ Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1