I am currently writing a paper with a rather extensive literature trail. There is a question (see bold) that I came across in multiple instances and I can't seem to find an answer to it on this site. Here are two examples.
Firstly, I am unsure whether I should cite papers that are wrong. For example there is a paper which discusses an issue relevant to a part of my paper. However, important parts of the paper have been shown to be wrong, and there is a published comment addressing these issues. A retraction was not found to be necessary.
Secondly, I am citing a couple of preprints, which I studied carefully and found to be relevant for completeness of the discussion. However, while I am able to judge the scope and relevance of the claims, I am unable to judge their correctness, since the methods lie outside my field of expertise.
In both cases above, my main question is whether by citing an article, do I obtain a responsibility for its correctness? I understand that this probably depends on how exactly the work is cited. For definiteness, let us take
A related model was discussed in [preprint citation].
as an example.
In such a context, the paper is tangentially relevant and should in my opinion be cited, even though it is only for completeness reasons. It is however not peer-reviewed and I am unable to judge its correctness. At the same time I am not stating this anywhere, which would sound weird and obscure the point. So the question here is if I can cite it without being partially responsible if the cited paper turns out to be wrong in the end.
I am aware of this post: Is it right to cite a retracted research article?, however I believe that it discusses a different issue. In this question I am specifically asking about the responsibility of assuring the correctness of cited work, also having in mind that it probably is practically impossible to check all the references in a paper for full correctness.