George Herbert wrote:
Is there any agreement for there being a manner in which to demonstrate to the community's consensus satisfaction that a claimed source has been added fraudulently and either does not really exist or does not really say what the citation claims it does?
No. The burden of proving that a source has been fraudulently added is on the person making the claim of fraud. Whether a source that is not directly quoted says what is claimed is often a matter of interpretation.
What I seem to have been seeing here is that there's an unreasonable tendency to assume that a citation is legitimate.
Why is that unreasonable? Such a presumption (rather than assumption) is consistent with assuming good faith on the part of the writer.
I would prefer if there were a healthy degree of skepticism associated with citations - any citation that does not contain enough information for a reasonable researcher to locate the original source, or at least verify the existence of the original source, should be challengable in a reasonable manner.
If you doubt the citation you can always check it out. There should undoubtedly be standards for what a citation includes. In the unusual circumstances where you think you have a bogus citation you should start by asking the contributor about it.
Ec