I disagree. Apologies if this sounds rude or abrupt, but it seems like a
bit of a copout! I've been referencing and footnoting the Strathfield
page, so I know it can and should be done.
Dont get me wrong, I understand that it may not be practical, but the
attitude should be that it's feasible and desirable to do this!
Ta bu shi da yu
Charles Matthews wrote:
Ta bu shi da yu wrote
What I'm
suggesting is that if the press references one of our articles on the
press source page that we can absolutely make sure that our references
are up to scratch and our facts correct.
I think this is going to be a standard pressure that WP is under, from here
to eternity: fact check everything, footnote everything, generally be
academic-level research provided gratis by volunteers.
Nothing wrong with beling reliable. The footnoted style doesn't read so
well - try some examples and see. WP will never be in serious competition
with those having five years to write a Ph.D. on a topic.
Charles