[WikiEN-l] Citationgate: expertise and verifiability

[Delirium]

Mak wrote:
> I'll say it again. [[Dido and Aeneas]] cites its sources in the form of
> references. If you want to check anything, all you have to do is look at a
> fairly short article in Grove and a fairly short introduction in an edition.
> It doesn't give inline citations because it doesn't say anything
> controversial, and no one has challenged anything in it.
>   

That seems reasonable to me, and I think this is a major problem with 
the current wikilawyering approach to footnotes (which bears resemblance 
to the footnote-heavy style of pedantic academic writing that's mostly 
fallen out of fashion in academia itself).  Footnotes make sense when a 
specific claim should be attributed to a specific source, especially if 
it's controversial.  Even some non-controversial claims could use 
footnote citations, such as dating an ancient battle to a specific date 
(cite a generally-accepted timeline).  When I'm writing articles that 
contain no unusual or controversial claims, though, it seems silly  to 
keep using footnotes after every sentence, so I just place the reference 
in the "References" section.

Interestingly, this is standard style in most of the technical articles, 
maybe because the pedants know not to poke their head in there.  Most 
good mathematics articles contain a footnote-free exposition of the 
subject, with some references at the end, and footnotes only to point 
out where authorities disagree, where there's a significant minority 
view, or to point to particularly notable proofs.

-Mark