Editing Reffer madness (section)

== Introduction ==
<sj>
: citations lack specificity. 
: as a result they mislead, they conflict, they obfuscate
: they don't aggregate, they don't prioritize, they don't elaborate
: slach lanu.
: you have to track down the original to know how and in what sense and at what depth a source was cited and whether the source is relevant, a flimsy self-published rag, or not evey traceable.
: and who has time or access to do that?

mako suggests: draft a standard for identifying types of refs, advocate for interest, start using it somewhere high-profile

sj suggests: blogging about this process, drawing in people who have though about this, defining it in a way that it can improve Wikipedia citation style and scalability of authority

<mako>
: all we can ask is that authors explain their perception of the reliability
: i don't want to cite things opaquely
: and i don't want others to do so as well
: one nice thing i want is a way to do it that is at least quasi-compatible with exciting style guidelines
:: <brassratgirl> exciting!
: so that i can argue in favor of doing it in things that i actually publish in other people journals
:: <greg-g> that seems like a must have
: <mako> bemasc (not here) suggested treating citations as kind of like nouns