Ben, bringing honor code into the discussion raises it several levels in intensity. Let me pose 3 scenarios to see if we can isolate that issue:
(1) Scenario 1. WikiTree member joins WikiTree, reads the Honor Code, and deliberately creates profiles containing nonsense, containing sources which are also nonsense. I'll give you this one; the member needs to be excluded from WikiTree.
(2) Scenario 2. WikiTree member is fascinated by family trees, is not highly sophisticated, and tends to believe that if it's in print, it's true. Member creates profiles with information from his own files which he believes to be true, and proudly adds <ref> recollections of WikiTree member. </ref> This person needs to learn more about genealogy and sources, but this is NOT an honor code violation.
(3) Scenario 3. I'm doing some work in the 1200s right now, and some of the material I need to revise was put up by the person in Scenario 2, back when Gedcoms were permitted. My first step in re-working the profile is to figure out where the existing information came from. If it's attributed to a reputable source, I make sure the citation is there and works. If it's attributed to ancestry, I put in ancestry as a source. Sometimes there are dates with no indication of where they came from. I put in a source <ref> WikiTree Data Field, not otherwise sourced. </ref> That tells me, and anyone else, that nobody knows at the moment where this particular fact came from. That doesn't tell me the fact is useless -- it may be totally true. But it helps map out the research task that I face, or anyone after me. I could say, as others have, "this is garbage", but the fact is, I don't know. That also tells me that this particular date appears on more than one profile, because that's what happens to information in the data field. This is all useful information to a researcher, and my objective as a researcher is to replace all the weak, and especially the garbage, citations, with better ones. But until that happens, I know where every fact on that profile came from and whether it's strong or weak. That's all important information. So if after researching a person I can replace all the <ref name="wdf"/> citations with sources one can be confident in, I can smile with success and give myself a pat on the back. And sometimes I start out with 20 and reduce it to three, and that's good, too.
We forget that these profiles, especially the older ones, are all works in process. Sure, if you're working on a profile of someone whose information is all public, say Winston Churchhill or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and you're starting from scratch, then of course, start with the best sourcing that's out there and don't put any garbage in the profile. But when working with profiles that are already out there, it's important to identify where each fact that's already there came from, even if you have to create a citation that says basically, <ref> this was already here and nobody knows where it came from </ref>/ That's better than just having a fact out there with no citation, because now you know what the research task is.