What’s the difference between the “source” and the “source URL”? I really don’t get it. Is it that big of a deal? Seriously!
There isn’t much of a difference. It is more of a courtesy. For example, if you saw http://www.mmlott.org, that wouldn’t give you much of an idea what you would find there, some charity from the .org extension. But having it repeated as “Lotts’ Labors” may give you a clue that somebody is talking about their work. [Granted that particular title doesn’t let you know what that work is. I used that particular website because I know the owners very very well (as well as I know my own self) and that it is discussing the Lott’s work on a Bible Translation team in Southeast Asia. You are invited to peruse the website.]
Giving a url takes a reader to the specific article. Putting in “NYT” tells the reader not to waste their time. Putting in “Washington Times” says that this may be a reasonably balanced article.
I hope you had the answer for this one already, but I will try:
Source url will allow people to verify the story. Some people post phony stories or plagerized versions, by posting the url we see where the information came from