I almost entirely agree with Cody. This site was always going to be difficult to regulate, as was evident in its long 'definition phase'- if philosophers could agree on what constituted a right answer, there would likely be precisely one or zero philosophy books in circulation. And, certainly, if this site is to succeed we need strong criteria to justifiably dispense with woolly and unhelpful answers, but I do not think citation quite covers it.
To ask for citations is, on the one hand, too intimidating- in spite of the dramatic upvoting of Cody's previous post extolling the virtues of citation, very few answerers have actually managed to cite effectively- and on the other, too open to abuse- if we allow citations of a non-academic nature, where are we to draw the line beyond which the 'citation' in question is simply a name drop (for me, at least, this is not a case of 'I know it when I see it')?
I suggest that we need something akin to the 'back it up' principle, referenced in the SE blog post Cody linked to. Here's my attempt:
Tell us where you're coming from
Philosophy as a subject consists in a multitude of perspectives, each consistent and justified in its own right. In time, perhaps exactly one such perspective will prove to be objectively true, all others being false, but at the time of writing this is emphatically not the case.
As such, it is vital when providing an answer- both so that conclusions can be examined as following from premises, and to provide context for further research by the querrant- that you declare the perspective by which the answer is given. This means pointing the reader toward information on the school of thought or methodology that motivated your answer, allowing them to in turn to explore the observations that motivated the perspectives themselves.
In the unlikely event that your answer is rooted in an entirely new perspective- that you, Jones, have discovered the brand new 'Jonesian Phenomenology' (and have yet to publish a paper on the subject), then feel free to expound it (making clear, of course, your motivations in devising it)- but be aware that your new perspective may be subject to the same scrutiny that any citeable perspective will have had to have survived since its inception.
In short: great answers are self-contained aside from their references, good answers tell us where they are coming from.
Now perhaps this is simply a rewording of the requirement for citation. But, rewording or no, it feels clearer and less intimidating than asking for references.