# Citation-Checking Beats Citation-Trusting ## Claim When a book cites a scholar for a specific factual claim, the only way to catch a misattribution is to read the scholar's actual page — confirming the footnote exists establishes nothing. <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ## Scope & conditions - Footnote existence and footnote accuracy are separate properties, and only the first is cheap to check. - The failure is usually not fabrication but drift: the cited page supports a weaker or different claim than the citing text makes. - Cost is real, which is why it is worth spending on load-bearing claims rather than on every citation. - Applies to my own vault — a quote mirrored from a source note has not been checked against the source. ## Evidence From Dan McClellan's analysis of claims about a crucifixion inscription, where cited scholarship is checked against the cited pages. ## Links - [[A Citation That Misses Its Anchor Is Worse Than No Citation]] — the same defect in web links, where a present citation discourages the check - [[A Claim That Proof-Texts Is Refuted By Reading The Rest Of The Source]] — the same failure where the source exists and does not say what it is cited for - [[Radiocarbon Dating Sets a Floor Not a Ceiling for Writing on Wood]] — the same episode's technical instance of an overclaimed inference - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Evidence & Claims Literacy MOC]] — the sourcing-discipline thread on verifying citations.