>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 a

>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 bad when some of those references end up as dead links, because then you can't even find out whether the chain ended up at a valid source or not. Related to this are long reference chains that end up on a shaky source. A poorly done study (or simply a bought one) can end up being referenced in a long chain. The links in the chain might end up giving more credibility to the source.