Thread:TotallyTinkerbell/@comment-27794543-20161009233140/@comment-27794543-20161011090229

Coming from the world of Wikipedia editing, everything is sourced. I regularly go through and contribute to pages with 100+ refs. If you're worried about the refs section getting too long, then we can add a scroller and/or collapse it, like we do with quote sections. If you're concerned about refs cluttering the page, then use named refs.

One of Wikipedia biggest strengths is it's policy of verifiability. It means a reader should be able to look at the sources to verify any statements in articles. When I look through a Wikipedia article, I can look at each source and determine for myself if it's reliable.

Here on wikia, if the backstage page was sourced, a reader could look at each statement's source and determine it's reliability – whether is came from an official account, a fan-ran spoiler account, random tumblr post, etc. Without individual refs, everything is the same – it won't matter if the info came from the 100 writers or made up by a troll, since there is no way to check. So it might as well be all made up.

Thus, I strongly prefer individual refs (even if the source is a fan's tweet) vs a generic list at the end. If this wiki prefers generic source list, then we'll has to assume anything added is 'true' because no one has anyway of verifying the info. To revert some users while not others, would be unfair and against wikia practices.