A true source citation should lead to a primary, secondary (or later) source that can be traced back to the original information. On examination of what should then be explicit information, the idea behind having access to the original (or derivative) information, one is able to analyse and verify the information derived from it.
If, however, one wants to keep track of how one came to have a given piece of information, that is called provenance. Sometimes the two are the same, but often, provenance could be something unsourced such as a gedcom file with no true source data apart from its name.
From what I see on Wikitree, gedcoms data of this kind is being mistaken for properly sourced data.
Why is there no distinction being made between source and provenance in the source field?
This question gets to the efficacy of having a project such as Wikitree in the first place.