"Obviously these type of sources and citations are (or at least should not be) too common."
My last comment
The key words here "should not be too common"
The more "commoner" the more your data base beomes built on sand
As the "commoner" percentage of your data increases the more potentially inaccurate/incorrect your total set of facts/events become and eventually your data base could become somewhat valueless.
You also have the problem of how much a percentage of your data base is built upon these types of documentation. You can create all sorts of notes for the ones you don't have sources for and can very dilgintly(sp?) create sources/attributes for the ones you have sources for, but as your data base increases in the number of facts/evens documented you will have [extreme] difficulity in determining the overall accuracy of your data base is, so it will become almost nigh impossible to determine how much sand your data base resides on
I think it is a dangerous practice and I think a lot of people do it and some of it eventually finds it way into the little shaky green leaf hints of Ancestry.com* and then people just copy it off and pretty soon a lot of data bases are built upon sand [* I note that it is beginning to find its way into Find-a-Grave and decreasing the accuracy of the data there---and it even is begining to finds its way into the NEGHS documentation - which is the origin of my comments on this subject]
Think of a couple of instances of this: the so-called "One World Tree" and the redo effort that FamilySearch is doing. The first one of these was essentially abandonded and the second is basically a redo effort because the first effort was very inaccurate-------In other words both were baed on sand
I will end with a quote I found somewhere on one of these threads of something to the effect that "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"