So, I was clicking through links, and found a “entry” on Amaterasu that mentioned her creating Japan with paintbrushes with her siblings.
Well, that’s weird, I thought. That is Definitely not in the standard sources.
In fact, it sounds like this understanding comes from the game Okami, hmm….
But there were cited established sources (encyclopedias). So I checked them, because yes, even printed sources can be wrong.
No brushes at all. (Although it was a nicely mashed up mix of sources, as is typical. But, whatever. That’s a later battle for me to fight.)
Now, if this was a student exam question, if the source (say Okami) was cited, there’d be points marked off for unwise choice of sources. But much fewer marked off than in the current incarnation, which appears to show either not reading the sources cited (which is lazy and not fulfilling the assignment), or potential unattributed sources (which violates academic integrity).
One of the reasons you cite things, remember, is not only to assign credit for those who worked before you, but also to avoid blame.