Rating Source quality w/ Tags using letter grade to classify each Source. Objective criteria used. E

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Right! So if you are trying to identify the set of all the sources that provide evidence for the vital, you can do it all from one place. If you have a source that you are trying to identify all of the conclusions it contributes to, you can do it from the other place.

The thing is that whenever you go to document some kind of a relationship that exists between two "things" in a computer system, you will frequently find that if you can set up the relationship (link or tag or whatever) from the item at one end of the relationship, you can also do it from the other end as well. This is not a hard and fast rule because in some simpler relationship types, the ability to do this (i.e. create the link or tag from both ends of the relationship) is not always required. But normally you will see this pattern.

LegacyUser

m said: I don't do this (obviously). I also don't add a Source to "prove" anything. I add a Source, say a TAG article, if it has info about an ancestor. That's it.

LegacyUser

m said: If the above Source Quality Tagging system is too complicated, how about:

Quality
Inferior
Fraud
Irrelevant