I don't think the issue is the act of citation itself, more that the citation is meant to provide a level of assurance that the idea you're citing is true. If you cite a paper in Science that carries with it a knowledge that some clever people have looked over it and can't see any obvious issues with the work. If you cite a napkin sketch that doesn't carry that weight and pushes the onus on to the reader to verify the cited claim themselves. In a paper with 100 citations that's not really a practical position to be in.
Im not saying it's necessarily a good system (plenty of shit makes it in to journals after all), but I can understand why an author would be hesitant to cite lots of non-peer reviewed sources in a paper of theirs. Having said that, I guess that's really just a sign that you're on shakey ground if you're reliant on dodgy sources!
Im not saying it's necessarily a good system (plenty of shit makes it in to journals after all), but I can understand why an author would be hesitant to cite lots of non-peer reviewed sources in a paper of theirs. Having said that, I guess that's really just a sign that you're on shakey ground if you're reliant on dodgy sources!