
Ask HN: Can Wikipedia's method of citing sources be improved? Has it been? - notheguyouthink
In short, i&#x27;d like to build a locally hosted (and maybe hosted alternative) fact aggregating system. My primary focus is to make sense of all the BS in the world, and live my life as informed as possible. I have poor memory, and i want to augment that with meaningful data. However, this project is not what i&#x27;m seeking information about, but specifically citing sources.<p>With that said, i dislike citing big articles as a &quot;source&quot; of information as the article often contains much more than the specific blurb. I want a better way to isolate the source, to know the fact.<p>Has anyone done this? In what ways do you think Wikipedia gets citing sources wrong? In what ways to they get it right?<p>Any comments appreciated :)
======
notheguyouthink
To start it off, it seems that copying the source material (whatever you
consider the fact / context) seems crucial[1]. Like StackOverflow, you run
into an issue where the source material may move, be removed, or be altered.

[1]: Note that this may only apply to locally hosted versions, which is my
primary focus. Copying source material on a public site would be stealing i'm
sure.

