Neil Harris wrote:
I think the point Mark is making is that there is a difference between a source actually used when writing the document, and a suggestion for further reading. One suggests that the source was used as a text source or authority, the other does not. Mixing the two up can create a false impression; and unfortunately many editors do not appreciate the differences.
There's a big difference between saying "I read this as I wrote this article", "I used this as an authority", and "someone mentioned this in their list of references for another article on the subject".
Sure there's a distinction, but it's only interesting for about 15 minutes, or less if the next editor comes along sooner. We don't value process over product; if a person adds a bit of text but justifies with an irrelevant or incorrect citation, we want to fix the text or citation or both as necessary.
For instance, in areas where I'm a recognized expert, I can write at length from memory, and don't need to refer to any sources at all; then the references I include are just for the benefit of readers, and other editors who want to check up on me. In other areas, I'm carefully paraphrasing the one reference I've been able to locate. However, I'm not expected or required to tell anybody which of the two processes I used for any particular edit, and even if I did, nobody would care much. So it's a distinction without a difference.
To put it another way, we evaluate an article based on what the current version looks like, not by studying the article's edit history. A good thing too - some of our finest articles have, shall we say, a checkered past. :-)
Stan