"=== Page is in rough shape ===
With the recent purge of content, the page is not as informative as it once was.  The biggest problem is the first section which had the  ""proposed benefits of basic income"" topic removed.  One editor may appear to hate naturalfinance.net, since the reason for removal was declaring that site to be a blog.  Also removed were affordability calculations that were researched and verified with working links, but also published on a platform that can be declared to be a blog.  Meanwhile the content left in the top section has poor references that do not appear to match the content.  For instance there is no reference for any conclusive argument or data that basic income creates a disincentive to work, and the link to reciprocity is not online, and the topic not a major issue.  Both of those topics have good quality ""blog classifiable"" sources available.

In order to Be Bold, I would recommend that eligible source material be broadened to include any quality content, including from sources that are not government funded.  Basic income is after all not within any traditional government agenda, and so limiting information to sources funded by interests against basic income harms the quality of the article, and prejudices/suppresses the article from being informative and enlightening.  Barring this broadened content eligibility, we all need guidance for what is eligible content, and perhaps what makes naturalfinance.net ineligible.  (The content there was written in 2011, and has been adopted, whether independently or without attribution, by other authors)

Here is the major recent deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basic_income&diff;=595677190&oldid;=595667344 .  Specifically the proposed benefits section should be reproduced.  Some of these can be sourced elsewhere, but we need a clear understanding of why it was originally deleted:   

Proposed Benefits

naturalfinance.net describes several purported benefits of social dividends and basic income:
 Wealth redistribution is the best possible economic development program because the wealthy don't spend as great a portion of their income as the poor do.
 Basic income is the most efficient possible form of wealth redistribution because there is no bureaucratic overhead needed to filter recipients, or find and punish abusers.
 Basic income as an alternative to public retirement pensions (such as social security in the US) is the only possible prevention of generational theft that will occur if the funding sustainability of future retiree pensions and care is threatened
 Reduced crime as a result of lower levels of desperation.
 Balanced power in the labour market as a result of not needing work out of desperation, and better competitive position of workers if some people choose not to work.
 Better work opportunities as a result of people better able to afford an education or business start up.
 Smaller government made possible and attractive by the alternative of increased basic income to offset any program cost reduction.  Viewed this way, the cost of every government program is paid for equally by each citizen, even if the source of government revenue is progressive income taxation.
 Social justice is achieved efficiently and automatically, with less requirement on charity and welfare.
 It is easier for volunteer home owners to help the poor and secluded through group homes by being able to rely on their certain income.  Its possible and easier for the disadvantaged to group up and help themselves in the same manner.
 Natural finance's definition of social dividends (variable basic income: tax revenue surplus over social program expenses) essentially allows the level of basic income paid to citizens to rise with economic, productivity, and automation growth. The affordability of basic income adjusts automatically to the performance of the economy.

"