This has been a continuing conundrum for me, as well. A few years ago I adopted a simple method of using HTML <span> tags to try to get around it, but it was subsequently made clear that the practice was considered prohibited (I still have profiles I haven't had time to go back and completely rewrite, however).
What it really boils down to is that for genealogy and historical research--more so than, say, scientific papers--simple, abbreviated source information typically is not sufficient. As Elizabeth Shown Mills notes in her indispensable work, Evidence Explained, a citation must serve not only to record the specific location of each piece of data, but it must also record all relevant details of the reference that affects the use or evaluation of the data.
In other words, it isn't enough to record where the information came from. In the genealogy evidence analysis process, that's the fundamental distinction among "source," "citation," and "information." What we add to profiles are not sources, they are citations. And somewhere there needs to be sufficient detail in a citation to convey to the reader what information the source contains and what about that information is relevant.
The information has to be analyzed, and for that there needs to be adequate explanation of what the information actually is. Here at WikiTree that means explaining "all relevant details of the reference" either in the text of the biography--which can really break up the flow and logical organization of a bio--or it goes somewhere else as a reference citation.
Adding to the conundrum for me is that I've created profiles that others have rewritten because they thought the citations were too lengthy. In that regard, let me say just one thing: valid information is not clutter. If a citation is nothing but a link to an external website, it absolutely positively is not being done correctly.
This need for basic, explanative information is why the Chicago Manual of Style's (see section 14.2 in the 17th edition) principal system of source citation uses notes, whether footnotes or endnotes or both, together with a detailed reference bibliography.
In fact, although the terminology is nonstandard, the WikiTree Source Style Guide (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources_Style_Guide) describes essentially this same notes-plus-bibliography construction, but I believe it's widely misunderstood. When I've had discussions with other WikiTreers about citations, the default is that inline <ref> notes are the be-all and end-all. Even the featured profile of the week seldom if ever follows the style guide.
As to this, I believe the convention of using a "See also" title line is the problem. "See also" is denotative of "here are some extra items to explore," and that's how it's generally used. Conversely, a fully-qualified bibliography should contain reasonably complete and detailed information associated with each footnote/endnote citation included in the body of the document.
Chicago Manual of Style, section 14.19:
"In the system favored by many writers in the humanities, bibliographic citations are provided in notes, preferably supplemented by a bibliography. The notes, whether footnotes or endnotes, are usually numbered and correspond to superscript note reference numbers in the text."
Ideally, we would be able to have a statement in the biography hyperlinked to a footnote, and then the footnote itself hyperlinked to the detailed description and explanation of the source and the information it contains.
Having no practical and acceptable way to do that, I've started using a sublevel heading underneath "Sources" (usually titled something like "Detailed Reference List"), and then use "see also" below that to contain other items of possible interest but which were not cited in the text. Here's an example profile: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Pollard-6111.
