Based on a discussion on an answer.
The sword of sharpness deals an extra 14 slashing damage when you roll a 20 on its attack roll. The SRD incorrectly says otherwise. Note that the SRD is not an official rules source for D&D.
[Agree with the man or not, we have to deal with the things he says.]
Does this mean that the SRD is unsuitable for citing in answers? Or is it fine to keep doing so?
Is there any potential downside to allowing an "unofficial" source to be cited?
The only real concern (besides the few known and existing discrepancies) is if this being considered "unofficial" means that they do not keep it up to date with errata gives a greater potential for confusion in answers. But of course this is a hypothetical based on an assumption.
For the record, I (clearly mistakenly) actually thought it was already policy that SRD not be used to cite things. For example discussion here: Language discrepancy between SRD and PHB and I think other places led me to believe this.
I don't care one way or another but thought a clear answer would be helpful since there is some confusion about the matter (and not just limited to me either).