We've been using a variety of web-based bookmarking tools for the past four or five years, tools like the now-departed Blink and Backflip.  They were all OK (so long as they remained financially viable), but never quite seemed to meet all our needs.  Recently, though, we learned about Furl (www.furl.net) and we like what we see.  Furl is in beta, so we don't know what the ultimate price will be, but journalists will like the ease with which we can pull URLs off a web page, markup those savings with keywords, copy-and-paste webpage annotations and then save the citation in a folder of your making.  Oh yeah, you can also save and e-mail the link(s) to anyone.  In fact, we like Furl so much, we will be demo-ing it next week at the IRE conference in Denver.

As the Furl gang says:
"Furl will archive any page, allowing you to recall, share, and discover useful information on the Web. Browse your personal archive of Web pages, and subscribe to other archives via RSS."

We look forward to these "new editing mechanisms."

Yes, policies on unnamed sources should be made, those policies should be clear and everyone in the newsroom should know what they are.  But more often (as in "every day"), editors must know the sources -- indeed, all sources -- are for a story, how to reach those souces and how to verify what the reporter wrote, even if the reporter is out-of-pocket. 

This is not difficult if journalists recognize that a PC-based word processing application already has the tools to assist in this "Who Are The Sources" mission. (If the publication is still using something like the old Coyote terminals, sorry, we probably can't help  you.) 

The tool is the "comment" function in the word processor.  While the newsroom is making policies about sourcing, add this one: "Every paragraph of every story will end with an embedded comment.  That comment will show editors exactly how the reporter knows what he or she just wrote."  The comment might include a source's name, phone number and date-time-place of interview.  The comment might include a URL or a bibliographic citation.  It might include reference to the specific reporter's notebook.  But in the end, the comments should be sufficient that an editor can "walk the cat backward" to determine exactly how the reporter knows what he/she just wrote.  Doing so helps prevent unwarranted assumptions and errors of fact, if not interpretation.