This is certainly a step in the right direction.
In a message dated 12/3/2005 10:55:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, 2.718281828@gmail.com writes:
A layered suggestion:
Step 1 : Strongly promote the current recommended footnote system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes
Step 2 : Strongly encourage the use of proper full cites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles... eneric_citations
Step 3 : Add software features making each of these easier : add localizable
strings for each field-name for cites and footnotes; then add 'footnote' and 'cite' buttons to the edit toolbar; provide "footnote" markup that handles autonumbering; add a keyboard-shortcut for footnoting; add footnote- and citation-aware menu options to WP browser plugins.
Step 4 : Work on unifying "References"/ "Citations"/ "Sources"/ "Bibliography"/ "External link[s]"/ "Further reading" style at the end of each article.
Step 5 : Add separate 'references' pages for every article. These pages should include: the date the article was created; the date of the last non-minor edit; the list of users, ips, and flagged-bots that have edited the article; a list of sources and other references that had been added at some point to the article; even a clear list of metadata about the article (protection/pov/cleanup/quality- assessment status).
Step 6 : Add a namespace/project to store the best-known information about every source used on any project, including user comments and trackbacks to articles referencing each source. (Optionally: seed this project with OpenCat content.)
Step 6.5: Add a wikitext feature like "{{cite:ISBN 0518274822|pp 12-23}}" which would subst: in the details of that work in proper citation format.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org