Law.SE is a site that can connect experts with layman to help clarify specific questions about the law, or "hypothetical" situations. These experts are knowledgable individuals that sometimes work in the legal field.

Might there be an inherent benefit to the community, if users with high reputations were afforded with a privilege to write articles on the site, that could be cited by other users that answer questions?

Instead of awarding reputation with up-votes and down-votes on an article, the user gains reputation when the article is cited by other users.

This feature request could help with the growing problem of linkrot(when urls that are linked to in answer no longer exist) by keeping helpful reference material local to Law.SE.

  • 1
    There was a proposal for 30k to allow having a personal blog on SE: What privilege should 30k users get?, but looks like it's not followed up anymore.
    – Andrew T.
    Commented Apr 3, 2019 at 14:24
  • @AndrewT. it does seem as though this could positively affect Super users of the site, and it would prevent linkrot. Commented Apr 4, 2019 at 10:31

2 Answers 2


The closest feature Stack Exchange has along those lines is the "self-answered question."

While references/citations don't directly give an author reputation, rep does tend to accrue to useful posts as they can be up-voted when visited. (The author of a useful question also accrues badges based on its view count.)


I also suspect that this would do nothing to prevent linkrot. It is infrastructurally and legally impossible to localize relevant sources. The only sure-fire solution to linkrot is to not link. So, sure, instead of providing a link to 18 USC 1001, we could simply make un-linked mention of this piece of the US code, and people who don't know where to find that law can just go away, or learn how to do their own legal research. As is good practice anyhow, a decent answer will already quote from the linked material and hopefully it won't be necessary to look up the original to understand the answer. It is still necessary to look up the original to verify the correctness of the answer. I just don't see linkrot as that important a consideration. Failure to provide support for personal opinions is a much bigger problem.

  • I understand your answer although I am confused on one part. Why would it be "legally impossible" to localize legal information? Commented Sep 5, 2019 at 23:37
  • It would involve copying protected material onto a local server.
    – user6726
    Commented Sep 6, 2019 at 0:22
  • I think we have a disconnect. I'm suggesting letting users with high reputations such as yourself write articles to act as reference material for answers, not localize article that are already on the web. Commented Sep 6, 2019 at 4:22
  • The best example of what I'm trying to propose was done by DaleM here, I'm just advocating for a better-structured approach. Commented Sep 7, 2019 at 20:03
  • I think I understand your proposal. I guess then I disagree with the approach. I don't dispute the correctness of the statements, but they are unsupported, and I dislike unsupported claims. Why do you think that those statements are correct, qua statement of the law? And why should a person with zero prior knowledge of law believe the statements? Why should we believe *Restatement of Torts"? – because there are citations that accompany the legal conclusions.
    – user6726
    Commented Sep 7, 2019 at 20:12
  • I think that's fair Commented Sep 14, 2019 at 6:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .