A source note should separate publication date, access date, and last updated date

A source note should separate publication date, access date, and last updated date because those dates answer different questions. Mixing them makes a citation look precise while hiding whether the source is old, recently changed, or merely checked once.

Publication date answers when the source first appeared. Access date answers when the citing person looked at it. Last updated date answers when the source owner says the page or record changed. A web support article, policy page, dataset schema, or standards document can have all three. If a summary only keeps one date, later readers may not know whether a claim was stale, current, or tied to a version.

The practical source note should use this structure: source title, stable URL or DOI, publication date if visible, last updated date if visible, access date, source role, and the exact claim it supports. The source role matters because the same link can be background, definition, evidence, or a warning that the answer may change.

For pages that change often, add a snapshot or version marker. For DOI records, check whether the DOI metadata points to updates, corrections, withdrawals, or newer editions. For live pages without a clear updated date, the access date becomes the only audit point, so it should not be omitted.

This format is small, but it prevents a common citation failure: a reader sees a URL and a date, then cannot tell what that date means.

A source note should separate publication date, access date, and last updated date

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE