attn scholarly organizations, this is now considered best practice

literally need to do this in current project!

Is the person in general an "oof" or the cited work the "oof"?

Are snarky footnotes also acceptable?

Lysenko [sic] (1937)

This is only acceptable if the reference date predates the ooof-date in parens. (i.e. "Snoswick 1997 (Ooooof 2010)")

#Alt4This screenshot (from Tumblr?) nathanielthecurious: i think you should be allowed to cite scholars who are bad people but only if you put the word (oof) or (yikes) after their name like Parker (yikes, 1989) or Obbink (big oof, 2007) kaceycat: Freud (derogatory, 1923)

yes love this

There's some of this in the law! digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-arti...

Assume 'yikes' is a higher level of problematic than 'oof', but where does 'big oof' fit into this scale?

I’d be delighted if there were a standard way to tag references, say: + credible , maybe relied on = neutral, or just mentioned in passing - not credible or outright wrong (I often skim references looking for known awful ones, but that can be misleading if the paper is critiquing them)