SJ wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Michael Snow wrote:

...

SJ wrote:

...

...

When you talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into connection to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen as something separate - many people are not able to "separate" things themselves they will combine and make something different out of all this.

What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding content? Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from; other people can do nothing but guess.

Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the original, the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the content. If I add content and

Don't misunderstand me; I mean that the original author can fairly effortlessly add a line about his/her source; whereas the next reader to come along will have to do significantly more work to find a relevant source and cite it.

Of course sources need to change, early sources should be replaced by better ones, etc.

Right, I understand that wasn't precisely what you meant, but I was arguing against possible implications of the way you approached it. The reason I did that (and "misunderstood" you in the process) is because many people, unlike you, misunderstand the use of sources. I've seen too many occasions where somebody objected to getting rid of a poor-quality source because some past author had used it, even if the article could be supported just as well from other and better sources.

So my comments were directed at those people generally, perhaps to little effect since most people on this list know better. Your message just gave me an opportunity to vent.

--Michael Snow