Based off of this meta question, I think we should address how to handle source citations that are known to be incorrect.
If Roll20 (or other 3rd party sources) are known to have errors, should we allow linking? Is it up to the user of that source to make sure it's correct or is it up to the community?
Do we/should we limit sources based?
Sources are the responsibility of the cite-writer, not the responsibility of policy.
The way to handle this then is business as usual: downvote answers that have errors, and optionally help them correct such errors with constructive comments.
Business as usual here too. (We run into this a lot already with DandDwiki homebrew mistaken for official material.) As usual, we solve someone’s problems with a comprehensive answer, including “part of your problem is that you read a misleading/incorrect page on the Tubernets” when necessary.
New policies don’t tend to make people do things. Outlawing a kind of link (or requiring rules to use it “right”) would be largely ignored.
But downvoting? That gets people’s attention. For example, the main motivator for our decreasing number of links to 5e.d20srd.org is downvotes with comments pointing out that it’s full of errors. We didn’t need to make a policy, just needed to penalise answers that were wrong.
People in general don’t follow rules. People speed, cheat on their taxes, and break SE rules all the time.
SE is set up to handle that by instead making it painful to write bad answers (to discourage it, and encourage fixes) and by demoting or disappearing bad content (to handle the remainder that’s neither discouraged nor fixed).
