I am having difficulty with how the words "information" and "Sources" are defined by some managers. I have studied the "Certainty" and "Disagreements about Certianty" Help pages. When applied to the data fields, I think I understand the procedure: use the most certain information you have from the best sources you can find. If it is from a secondary source, it can be marked uncertain. If a better source is discovered, we can replace the information in the field. This is fairly easy for me to follow.
However, when we apply this concept to the narrative part of the profile, I get confused. An example: I use Geni to establish a DOB as Feb 1701. I enter it into the DOB field and mark it as uncertain. The Geni source is cited in the narrative.
Later, I discover a reliable birth record (say, 11Feb1701, from Sudbury Birth....). I update the DOB field and add the new Source to the Narrative.
Here is my issue: I believe that the original Geni source should remain somewhere in the narraitive. Generally, I include a description of what the Geni Source claims. I may also note if some of it is incorrect or if there are other sources cited. I think that every bit of information that can be found should be somewhere in the narrative, either as an uncited source, part of a "Research Notes" section, or perhaps as part of a "See also" section.
Unfortunately, some managers think these secondary sources are useless, and delete them. When I come back to the profile later, I don't see any of these secondary sources, don't recall if I found them before, and so spend unnecessary time tracking them down again.
I think that anyone interested in a particular profile should be able to see everything that has been found. (perhaps with an explanation regarding its value). An easy click on a hyperlink (which I always include, if possible), allows for an easy check: sometimes the secondary source has new info.
While we should replace the field information when something better is found, and while inline citations in the bio can also be replaced, the original (perhaps poor) source should not be deleted from the profile. It should remain somewhere in the profile, perhaps near the bottom. We should not use the same standard as would be used in a published book or article.
Of course, this is only my view of how it should be done. I would appreciate comments by others.