When authorities aren't doing their jobs, we're left with vigilantism or nothing.
> Then think of how much scientific inquiry has been discouraged because people don't want to work under those conditions.
That's an entirely different issue. What we're talking about here is work that exists, but is not cited due to it's authorship. If Adolf Hitler himself had correctly proven Goldbach's Conjecture, is the proof itself so inseparable from his other actions that it should be rejected with them?
Lets make up some estimated numbers that the average resole rate is 8%. Would we be willing to double the police budget to get 16%, assuming falsely that we are lucky enough that double the budget doubles the result. What if we make assumptions of guilt and raises the resolve rate to 20%, but also increase the false accusations by 2000%? What about a camera in every street, testing the case that camera surveillance decrease crime (just like London).
I think authorities are mostly doing their jobs within the limits that we gave them. It can naturally be done more efficient but we are talking about such low resolve rates and that makes it look like they do nothing in most cases.
I don't need a jury of twelve peers being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt to tell me how I should engage in voluntary collaboration with another person.
If I don't want to cite, or work with assholes, that's my business. Call it mob rule if you want, freedom of speech and assembly means freedom from being compelled to work with someone.
Citations are an endorsement of a person's work, and of a person. You may wish for that to not be the case, but that's how they are perceived.
The problem is now that some of these facts are unique. While you, for example, could ignore measured data points if there are others around (not a good idea), you can not simply replace a theorem etc. by something else. You can not attribute it to someone else either. And you shouldn't use it without citations either, because the chain of proof has to be preserved.
The endorsement of a person's work is a consequence of this. If the findings are more relevant or important, they will be cited more. -> if you are cited more, you do important stuff.
Half of the cited opinions in the article that advise against citing do so in a quantifiable manner.
"Billy's work isn't that important, other contributors have done work of similar importance, without a cloud of unethical behavior around them, you lose little by failing to refer to it, or by citing someone else instead."
Unless Billy is the first, only, and final word of authority on a subject (Which in hard sciences, or mathematics, he may well can be,) you can probably find equivalent results among his peers.