That's not exactly my intention, and your statement goes in line with what I said..
> sure I've cited software in the past, and having an article to go with it is even better
where "software" could also include blog posts. It's just that, yeah, when it comes to it if I have to choose between citing something some guy wrote on a blog or citing Arxiv, I'll choose the latter every time.
But my question was not about whether arxiv is an appropriate medium for publishing ideas, I'm certainly not arguing that it should go away, but rather whether it's an appropriate thing to be citing in a scientific context. i.e. in derived work.. should it be "okay" for people to publish to arxiv and just.. leave it there and not put it in a conference or journal? Should such work be validated by citation?
It's a legitimate question that I don't know the answer to. If you get an idea from there, you can't just.. not cite it.. and yet, I feel like arxiv should be used only as long as the work will eventually get a proper publication. Which more and more it seems is not a given.
I'm really just responding to the statement on the posted link, which is just a header, "Citation", and an Arxiv-bibtex entry. No "submitted to X..", "in press", etc., or anything.
Again, it's not that I'm totally against the idea, but I think there must be some happy medium between "peer reviewed work" and "well-written but unreviewed article". Typically this used to be conferences, but conferences are expensive, and with people uploading their pre-conference unaccepted publications and those getting citations, I mean.. where will this end?
I was a bit shocked recently while writing an ML article to find that the "official" original reference, that you see cited everywhere, for the whole concept of "style transfer" appears to be an arxiv paper . My reservation doesn't so much come from the fact that the authors put their work there, but more that this is what people are actively choosing to cite over their peer-reviewed conference publication . When does "pre-print" become just "print"?
(Currently Google Scholar reports 216 citations for the former and 74 citations for the latter. Of course they were published a few months apart so it's not a great comparison but still, just an example..)
And people outside of academia often don't have access to journal publications. Who wants to spend $30 per paper? That's just obscene. The arxiv link is accessible everywhere, will never go away (probably), and can be updated as the authors revise the paper. Why not cite it?