Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd hate to just see a URI and go "OK, I am convinced ty" and automatically pick up the pitchforks against those without. Something to particularly consider are circular references. If you make the reference graph large enough then it's easy to fool people into thinking that there is a valid source for a claim when there actually isn't one. All you have are references that refer to one another. It gets particularly…
I don't think you even need a large graph! People have observed this happening with just two nodes, where one of the nodes is Wikipedia [1] — some website states information they learned on (or copied from) Wikipedia, and then Wikipedia cites that website as a primary source. [1] https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/wikipedia-citogenesis-c...
Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
#281Then hundreds of websites cite the wikipedia article, some without revealing their source, then become additional citations for the Wikipedia article.