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.

(On the other hand, if weh ave a separate sources page for each article, it will be easier to cleanly see the history of sourcing -- which will also be a good thing)

to try and divine the intent of an original author, and we needn't be beholden to that person in terms of choosing sources either.

Yes, not beholden. But when adding content, mentioning your source should be second nature, for all contributors. We should not try to 'separate' citing from adding content.

SJ