I think this is getting confused. Sorry, I'm not being rude to individuals. Basically the discussion seems to be going in different directions.
My priority in using sources is to record the original source. That is never familysearch or Ancestry. They do not hold original sources. They either hold transcriptions or photocopies. Thus familysearch has transcriptions of UK censuses, but Ancestry has photocopies. The IGI does in fact have source documentation for original parish records.
The problem with transcriptions is that they are second-hand and often incomplete. I have found much more informatiuon when consulting the originals than when looking at a familysearch transcription of the same.
Photocopies of originals, on the other hand, are reliable, providing you can read them. Sometimes the originals are easier.
Anyway, if my source is familysearch, I say it is a transcription and refer to where the original is held. An example might be a parish record for somewhere where it isn't practicable to get to see the original. With photocopies, I refer to them as I would to the originals and say where they are held. London marriages on Ancestry might be a good example, held at the London Metropolitan Archives.
Other people's family trees are only valid as sources if they show the original sources themselves.
My personal view on Wikitree profiles is that they should not be a place to display original material in general. There may be a point in showing a transcription of a will because it says something about the testator, but why a census entry or a marriage certificate? The information from those should be there but no need for a photo of the original.
The crucial thing is that anyone reading a Wikitree profile should have confidence in the information given and should know where the original material is to be found..