Tarquin wrote:

I don't think footnotes are suitable for webpages. Unlike paper, the user has to travel (potentially) a long way for related information. I have been trying to reintegrate them into the text where I see them in articles -- I suggest we try and write without them

I have to disagree. Footnotes add an additional layer of difficulty in both paper and web formats, but sometimes they're necessary.

As for how far the user has to go, let me clarify my language a bit. "Footnotes" refer to the notes that appear at the bottom of the same page on which a footnote reference appears. "End notes" refer to notes that appear at the bottom of an entire article. Both notating schemes are used in academic and other paper-based publishing contexts, but the only one that could really be used on web pages would be the "end note" scheme, and that's actually what I had in mind. Instead of "footnotes," I should have written "end notes." Once that point is clarified, I think it's clear that users wouldn't have to travel any further to find the end notes in a Wikipedia article than the readers who look up end notes in a book or scientific journal.

The reason for using footnotes and end notes is precisely so that readers who *don't* want to read the minutiae of documentation can skip past it, while enabling others to find that information if they so choose. This isn't necessary for all articles, but it can be a big help when writing about complex or controversial topics. For complex topics, it enables the writer to "hide" some of the complexity without ignoring it. For controversial topics, it enables the writer to provide meticulous documentation in support of assertions that readers might question, without bogging down the text.

I'm not saying that anyone here *has* to use end notes, just that they should be *able* to do so if they think it's appropriate.