« Boxing and the definition of sport | Main | NFL Bounty Scandal - Pre-Saints? »
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Are All Citations Good Citations?
There’s a saying in the public relations field that “all press is good press.” The main premise is that, regardless of positive or negative attention, the ultimate goal is to be in the public eye. Does this same concept extend to legal academia? When our work is cited, but somehow questioned for its accuracy, merit, or value, is that better than not being cited at all?
Posted by Kelly Anders on June 12, 2012 at 12:03 PM in Deliberation and voices, Legal Theory, Peer-Reviewed Journals | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0176155e2b80970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Are All Citations Good Citations?:
Comments
I don't know about y'all, but I'd rather be ignored by someone than criticized in an ill-informed or misguided way. On the other hand, I'm sort of with Socrates (among others): on matters of significance, being corrected is the best of things, and I welcome the chance to learn from my mistakes.
Posted by: Dan Markel | Jun 13, 2012 4:39:16 PM
Generally yes, since "somehow questioned" suggests overall the cited source is reasonable and worthy of at least respectful debate, and even if you are singled out as horrible, it encourages some to take a closer look, which at times leads some to believe you are in fact not that bad.
Posted by: Joe | Jun 13, 2012 11:56:37 AM
Yes, because even if someone is critical of us, they are improving the extent of our knowledge; pursuing truth.
Posted by: Thomas NZ | Jun 12, 2012 10:46:59 PM
I can't believe all citations are good citations (see e.g. John /2 Yoo), but who digs that deeply?
Posted by: Anon BC I dont have tenure | Jun 12, 2012 8:02:11 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.