Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/1/05, SJ <2.718281828(a)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.