The more I think about this, the more I think it's important to include some reference on the front page to the GEDCOM upload. A GEDOM is, at the heart, a secondary source. They vary in quality, much like every other secondary source, but they are the result of someone's work, and should be given credit. Trying to determine the quality of the GEDCOM is pretty subjective and I would think that the default should be "leave a reference".
If space becomes a concern on larger profiles, I think we've already been shown the answer - use a div with overflow, such as at the Middle East Category page (I assume that html will work just as well in a bio as it does on a Category page) and source things there.
I think any removal of GEDCOM reference should be an exception, and the editor should be prepared to defend why that GEDCOM was not worthy of a cite. In general this shouldn't even be worth the effort of doing and the GEDCOM reference should just be left. It's much better to over-cite than under-cite, right?
This isn't wikipedia - wikipedia is by definition not supposed to be independent research and conclusions. But genealogy *is* independent research and conclusions; we're taking what facts we can find (this name is listed as a parent in this census record, this birth record, this will, this obituary, etc) and drawing what conclusions we can. Sometimes with more confidence that others, but drawing conclusions just the same. Because of that critical difference, the citing rules must be different here than they are at wikipedia as well.