actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
Nah, the kooky view is too easy. A better case would
be a passage in a scientific article written by one of our inhouse experts that correctly
states the basic concept of a scientific field, but in a way that hasn't been
"published" because it is trivial grad student exercise the derive it, and all
published work is at the bleeding edge of the field. Imagine his/her frustration at being
asked for a citation for something that is obvious, and not being able to provide one,
even though he can explain it so well that even the arbitrators understand it.
Sorry, no original research, no insightful
explanations and yes, a big hole in making the subject more accessible.
Do you have real-life examples of this happening?
I think it's important that it always remain on-topic for someone
to ask, at a given assertion or definition, for a reference for it.
As [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] points out, it may be obvious to
*you*. But if someone comes along in five years and asks, backup
would be a very useful thing.
I've been spreading {{unreferenced}} tags with great (slightly
restrained, after the TFD nomination ;-) glee, and I see others
have taken to it too.
- d.