At 10:23 12/04/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Matt M. wrote:
Regarding references: I generally only list multiple references when dealing with a highly contentious issue. It's a habit developed on the Straight Dope Message Board where the word "Cite?" can strike fear into the heart of any polemicist. As for articles that are largely factually based (geography, for example) I don't usually see the need, unless, at the outside, I'm exposing some rare and little-known fact. Basically, any fact that someone would be highly inclined to question is a fact I'm gonna put a citation for.
There is a second reason for citing references even in non-controversial subjects. There is always a practical limit to how much can be put into an encyclopedia article, or there may be potential copyright or trademark violation issues. Where a reader has found a Wikipedia article to be absolutely scintillating he may feel inspired to look more deeply into the subject. Providing references is then a service to the reader. In such circumstances providing references may not be a necessity but it should still be strongly encouraged.
If by "references" we mean "further reading" (something which will compliment and expand upon the article), then yes, let's have more of them please. But if we mean "the sources I have used to write the article" (which is my understanding of what "references" are), then I think it's a bad idea to always provide them. On very obscure or controversial stuff, of course sources have to be cited, but for info that is easily verifiable in any one of hundreds of sources (and most of the article I work on are made up of nothing more than this sort of info), I don't see the point.
In short, I think Montréalais approach to citations in the right one.
lp (camembert) WikiKarma: [[Gary Hume]]