Unsourced.org is undergoing a few changes.
The initial proposition for a user of the site was:
"Help us add sources to articles! It's really worthwhile and you'll have the warm satisfaction of a job well done and... er... uh... well, that's it really."
All very virtuous and worthy. But it turns out that people are sometimes selfish and are always on the look out for things of benefit to them. Who'd have thought it? People go to websites because there is something in it for them. This something could be utility, information or just plain amusement.
So it makes more sense for unsourced.org to push itself and it's browser extensions in terms of what it can do for the user:
"it automatically tells you sources of bad newspaper articles!"
"You can slap warning labels on bad articles."
This new focus relies heavily on the browser extensions. The idea is that the extensions should become such a standard part of your daily news reading that you come to expect all articles to have sources and warning labels. And when that information is missing, the absence will offend you so much that you'll want to hunt it down and add it yourself!
So why did we make such a big blunder, completely missing out on telling people precisely why unsourced.org was so cool? That's simple: we're stupid. When you're neck deep wading about in tiny technical details, it's really easy to miss the big picture.
Many thanks to @frabcus for the requisite pointing-out-of-the-bloody-obvious :-)