I agree completely. Lack of citation and traceability is IMHO a big glaring deficiency in traditional encyclopedias, and it's one that should be remediable in a hypertext encyclopedia. (However, like so much about Wikipedia, there's no big barrier to "just doing it" and hoping that others will follow suit. Much as I'd like better Wiki-apparatus for the purpose). As for "Wikipedia is not a list of citations"—fine; neither is Lauren Hillenbrand's "Seabiscuit: An American Legend," but every darn statement she make in that readable, popular bestseller is documented and attributed. The omniscient viewpoint adopted by textbooks below the college level and encyclopedias is intellectually dishonest. When an educated person reads any factual matter, the question "Why should I believe this?" is (or should always be) in the back of their mind. "Because it's in a book and 'they' wouldn't print it if it weren't true?" "Because the style of writing gives me the impression the author knows what he's talking about?" Verifiability is important. (And it's just as important for noncontroversial facts as for controversial facts). One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that it gives us an opportunity to think about the nature of knowledge and authority. -- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)world.std.com alternate: dpbsmith(a)alum.mit.edu "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/