Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/1/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? Requiring a 'references' section for every article (thanking the heavens that WP is not paper), and reminding every editor that *every* new article should come with at least one reference, seems a responsible thing to do. Can you offer a reason not to have such a section for any article?
I meant that more than that is hard to automate. You're right that the bare minimals can be easily checked. However, I can't see that we can automate much beyond that with ease.
On en:, even that will help a *great* deal.
If you're writing about one of those topics that is a) not private research/analysis of your own, but b) has never been written about anywhere else [that you know of], then we need a new class of references : "personal observation by [user]", with a relevant tag not unlike the original-reporting templates used on Wikinews. Then it will be crystal clear that readers should visit your page, and see whether they trust you as the primary/original observer/author.
Much of this falls under 'original research', doesn't it? Or are you talking about the cases where someone believes that something is true but doesn't have the references to hand?
Either original research or that case. In that case, the personal observation should go on the talk page for others to find a good reference for.
- d.