I actually am a fan of it, Debi, and it's also something of a soapbox issue for me (so, darnit, another long post; I couldn't control myself). And "bibliography" is not a dirty word in the WikiTree Style Guide: "What we call sources could be called items in a source list, bibliography, or works cited.... Sources in this list should always be complete citations, while the references that refer to them can be abbreviated."
Although I use bibliographies slightly differently than you and, unfortunately, have had very, very little time to revisit and expand profiles. Here's one example where it's at least formatted the way I want, but still needs work. I don't use "===" subheadings under "==Sources==" but I do clearly distinguish between what is a shortened version of a citation and a complete and hopefully thorough source list (bibliography). But maybe I should use subheadings.
Not to assault a deceased equine, but the WikiTree Style Guide is very loosely described and might--or might not--conform to any of the major style systems, like AP, APA, Bluebook, Chicago, ISO 690, MLA, the Oxford Guide (Hart's), or Turabian. You really wouldn't be able to publish a humanities (think history) or physical sciences research paper by following the WikiTree style guide. But still it tries to be a bit more prescriptive than does Wikipedia.
The WikiTree Help:Sources page includes this: "The ideal citation format on WikiTree is Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS), generally following Elizabeth Shown Mills' Evidence Explained." Let's take a quick look at commentary by the Purdue Writing Lab about the Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition and bibliographies:
"In the Notes and Bibliography system, you should include a note (endnote or footnote) each time you use a source, whether through a direct quote, paraphrase, or summary. Footnotes are added at the end of the page on which the source is referenced, while endnotes are compiled at the end of each chapter or at the end of the entire document....
"If a work includes a bibliography, which is typically preferred, then it is not necessary to provide full publication details in notes."
I don't own the 17th edition, but I do own the 14th. And the subject of bibliographies is covered extensively in the 148-page Chapter 15: "Notes and Bibliographies."
And in Evidence Explained, Elizabeth Shown Mills presents distinctions among a "Source List Entry" (i.e., a bibliographic entry); a "First (Full) Reference Note" (in which page numbers or specific locational information is added to the content of the bibliographic entry); and a "Subsequent (Short) Note" (additional footnote citations to the same work or information already cited).
By all accounts, if we were actually to use the Chicago Manual of Style and Evidence Explained as "the ideal citation format on WikiTree," all profiles would include a detailed bibliography.
My viewpoint is simple. I don't consider source citations to be merely substantiation that I found or used a piece of information. In that regard, WikiTree is not a fixed-in-print publication and which, somewhat ironically, begs even more for a comprehensive bibliography.
Here, profiles are dynamic, collaborative efforts. Minimizing the documented information that I've researched helps no one. It then becomes only a clue and you have to go and read the information yourself to decide if it's pertinent and how it applies.
What I hope to do is not just provide a "here's where I found it" citation for a piece of information. Quoting Evidence Explained again, "...Source citations have two purposes: to record the specific location of each piece of data, and to record details that affect the use or evaluation of that data."
Emphasis mine. When I have time to create a bibliography, I expand beyond the minimums required by the APA or the Chicago Manual of Style; which practice, BTW, neither discourages. I want other researchers to have not just the absolute bare minimum that WikiTree might consider "sourced" but to have enough detail so that they can see what I found, and how those details "affect the use or evaluation of that data."
But you don't really need that level of detail in a footnote; I think you should be able to click on the title in that footnote and go to the complete bibliographic entry, however. And some people really don't like that level of detail at all.
An example. Not long ago, I had a very experienced WikiTreer, a member for five years, visit the profile of one of my 4g-grandparents and, because the citation detail looked too long, they removed the detail leaving, in some instances, only links. All my U.S. census citations include data that is as complete as I can make it; e.g., the county, the precinct number and/or enumeration district, the page number, the dwelling and/or family number, the enumeration date, the household members with ages and relationships and state of birth where presented, sometimes information about profession or estate/land value, and preferably links to both Family Search and Ancestry. Those entries were deleted on my 4g-grandfather's profile leaving only linked text that read "Ancestry.com – 1850 U. S. Census - [person's name]," "Ancestry.com – 1860 U. S. Census - [person's name]," "Ancestry.com – 1870 U. S. Census - [person's name]."
Text on a profile is cheap. It doesn't take much fileserver space to store text. But I do get that, as footnotes, extensive documentation is bulky and distracting. That doesn't mean it should ever be deleted in favor of just a link. Every single bit of that information has value. Which is why, best case, I prefer an exhaustive bibliography with, as Shown Mills refers to it, the "Short Note" format for footnotes. The reader needs to hop down to the detailed bibliographic entry only if she wants to.
More, I also want other researchers that come after me to see where else I looked and what I found. Per the Chicago Manual of Style and the APA, if a bibliography is used there shouldn't be a footnote/endnote that doesn't also have a bibliographic entry, and there shouldn't be a bibliographic entry that wasn't used as a footnote/endnote citation denoting a specific piece of information. That's where "See Also" comes in. There I also expect fully-fleshed bibliographic-style entries, with "record details that affect the use or evaluation of that data."
If I were "publishing" a genealogy, I wouldn't document as much as I try to here. No standard, including the BCG, requires it. But we're doing more than publishing. We're working together in a collaborative effort and the profiles I edit, hopefully, will still have interested, active researchers long after I and the ephemeral internet links--that some feel are adequate as citations--are all long dead.