# Proof of editing sources **URL:** https://community.metabrainz.org/t/proof-of-editing-sources/579126 **Category:** MusicBrainz **Created:** [April 1, 2022, 3:14pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/proof-of-editing-sources/579126 "2022-04-01T15:14:52Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 25
### Author: ![chaban](https://community.metabrainz.org/user_avatar/community.metabrainz.org/chaban/32/111349_2.png) [@chaban](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/chaban) #### Post date: [April 2, 2022, 12:05pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/proof-of-editing-sources/579126/25 "2022-04-02T12:05:46Z")
> [@thwaller](#): > > My point is that with physical releases, all of the data that can be found is used, and if it is not there, it should not be (depending on the editor). I see digital in the same. Does this apply to relationships like samples too? Often (at least the releases I come across) this information is not disclosed. If I [recognize the sample](https://musicbrainz.org/edit/87391618) I’ll still add it. If it’s [disclosed](https://musicbrainz.org/edit/87391549) it’s much easier and then there are the cases where the artist might [disclose it on request](https://soundcloud.com/fxckuuuuuu/bad-ending) > [@yindesu](#): > > I can’t find it, but there was a somewhat related topic where somebody was trying to require booklet/scans for all releases, and the general sentiment was no. I think it was a topic by Hape40 but it seems to have since been deleted(?) (the editor account was also deleted but more recently afaik). Now I can only find a much older topic where he also happened to have posted. _In case it was indeed deleted, that wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen an entire topic disappear (and I don’t mean spam)…_ _Even negative feedback can be useful_ --- _[View the full topic](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/proof-of-editing-sources/579126)._