Many times I have been reading an article concerning a subject with which I am familiar, and seen a "Citation Needed" notation on a point of fact that I found perfectly intuitive, and seemingly inarguable. This experience is extremely irritating, and my first impulse is simply to edit out the notation as being unnecessary, unwanted, and bordering on immature or ignorant. I'd almost like to call it vandalism, except for one thing: I am, in fact, familiar and comfortable with the material, and that raises the question whether or not someone might indeed have a valid reason to call for greater clarity or authority of a "fact" that I tend to take for granted.
I have also had the opposite experience: that of trying to follow an article which seems to assume a great deal of knowledge I don't seem to have at my disposal, right off the top of my head. (Yes, even I am not omniscient...yet. P:D )
If we view this as a matter of NPOV (that would be Neutral Point Of View, in case you didn't know that already), then what is to be done about including dramatically more fundamental knowledge not being included in an article concerning some complex subject? Do we have to explain arithmetic and algebra in a discussion of calculus? Do we break down amino acids into an explanation of pH? Huhwhazzat? Or do we set up pages with links, and an expectation that more fundamental articles will have to be read, understood, and their content mastered to at least the extent that the reader can then appreciate the nuances of more advanced material...and then in turn be irritated, themselves, at the inappropriate use of "Citation Needed".
There, how's that?