[WikiEN-l] A much neglected aspect of quality - Bibliographies

[Andrew Gray]

On 30/06/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> Like many dilemmas faced by Wikipedia, we need to do several
> things: cite the references actually used; cite easily accessed
> sources of information, especially online sources; and point
> the reader to the seminal articles and authorities in the field.
> These categories need to be set forth in clearly identifiable sections.

Notes [explanatory footnotes and specific references to sources - Jones, p. 39]

Sources [works actually used]

Further reading [stuff you need to look at for better coverage, or for
another angle, or for related topics]

Both of the latter sections can happily be discursive - there's
nothing wrong with "further reading" being a few hundred words of
running text on what this covers versus that, or with "sources"
containing notes on which ones seem more reliable...

See, eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bover for a discursive
sources section.

On an obscure topic, sources and further reading may be the same - "I
have used every significant work I could find".

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk