I have noticed a tendency for responders to positively state opinions as though they were facts.
As an example see this question
Can the sun damage the camera sensor?
Five answers are in the form of unsupported opinions while the sixth answer is based on reported extensive experience that directly contradicts the other five answers.
Answers can generally be categorised as follows:
a) the responder's unsupported opinions
b) reasoned replies that are deductions from well known facts
c) the responder's reported experiences, observations or measurements
d) the responder's assertion that has backing evidence in the form of citations/references.
a) would seem to be the weakest form of reply while d) is the strongest form of reply, c) depends on your trust that the experience was accurately reported and b) is as accurate as the reasoning and the facts they appeal to.
Wikipedia has a policy of encouraging references for all statements of fact.
Should we follow a similar policy?
A counter argument can be made that this site's system of voting and reputation is designed to give weight to unsupported opinions that are likely to be true. In effect it is resorting to argument from authority, the collective wisdom confirms an opinion.
So the question I am inviting you to discuss is this - should we have a policy of encouraging responders to back their assertions with facts, either from experience or from third party references? Or conversely to ask them to prominently label opinions as personal opinions?
See also Good Subjectve - Bad Subjective