To make the answers acceptable I think there should be references to all the answers (atleast wherever required) provided to really believe in the history. Since our site is about the HISTORY of math and science, it becomes important about the sources or references. What do you think about it?
I think referencing as done on History.SE and Skeptics.SE should be sufficient.
- Referencing on Skeptics.SE
- Discussion about sources on History.SE
- Referencing discussed on Biology.SE
Talking about topic X I find that
[this paper](link) has said:
blah blah quote
From page X of
book name (and author) it says:
blah blah from book
Yes, you are right, topic X did happen. From
[here](link) OR book name we see that many scientists of the renaissance era ate ketchup with their chips.
Scientists that ate ketchup with their chips were more likely to fake their data . This is because lions did this also . There was also the fact that topic X experimented on live animals so penguins were studied and the same behaviours were observed .
later on in the answer
[Some internet link](link)
 `From national geographic magazine (date, page, etc)
 `From "The big book of penguins" ISBN, data, author etc.
While it is often preferable to have references, there should not be any strict rule about this. If an answer can be improved by adding references, we already have a mechanism for providing such feedback, viz. voting and comments.
At Skeptics.SE for example, this strict rule has morphed into the absurd rule that, like Wikipedia, there should be no original research whatsoever, and every sentence and clause must be backed up by references. In which case, why not just stick with Wikipedia?
I think we should welcome original research (which is not equivalent to making sh*t up) and let voting and comments decide if the answer is good.