On Nov 6, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Derek Lyons wrote: > On 11/6/06, Ori Redler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In WP, and also here, those are very much in vogue, probably as part > of the effort to show >that WP (or CZ) is a credible source of > information. The problem is that footnotes tend to >hinder > readability. I think we need to find a way to make notes less > prominent (although I'm >not sure exactly how). > > Footnoting and bibliographies can also be taken *too* far. I forget > which one, but I recently came across an article on a semi-popular > topic that had *57 footnotes* for a three screen long article. (Then > the bibliography covered another two screens - all of the cites other > websites, and over half of them 404ed.) > > D. > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
And let's not forget articles like GWB with abut 10 sub-artiicles. For GWB to have that much ink compared to say the Eisenhower article is just unthinkable. --Guy _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
