Wikipedia In Court: The How & The When

The logo of Wikipedia.
Image via Wikipedia

I haven’t picked on Wikipedia in a while, so when I got the Legal Writing Institute email this morning with a link to the article entitled Wikipedia in Court: When and How Citing Wikipedia and Other Consensus Websites is Appropriate, I figured it was time for another go-around with the authority-by-crowd-compromise site. Authors Hannah Murray and Jason Miller undertake to define a process to determine when citing to Wikipedia is o.k., despite its faults, failings and questionable authority. The authors premise their article with an explanation of the difference between citing sources like Wikipedia or, egad, the Urban Dictionary for the meaning of slang terms and relying on such sources for the “contours of the xyphoid process.” In short, the authors believe that appropriate citation of Wikipedia is driven by the legal context in which the citation will be used and the structural limitations of Wikipedia in that same context. I say there is no such thing as appropriate citation to Wikipedia in the context of a legal brief or judicial opinion.

One of the issues is that Wikipedia articles are open to constant revision from any source. The authors believe that some of this concern can be addressed by qualifying the citation by date and time, and explain how to find the time-stamp for the particular page. The authors also believe that Wikipedia is a fine resource for determining the community or consensus perspective on a non-legal concept. Thus, the more technical and formalistic a concept, the less appropriate it is to cite Wikipedia.

While I am right there with the authors on their caution against citing the big Wiki for technical concept, scientific or biographical data, I am still not convinced it is a reasonable source for crowd consensus on the meaning of common phrases such as “business day.” Take, for example, the fact that women are highly underrepresented on Wikipedia as editors and contributors and you are missing half of the population that might have an opinion on what a business day is. The field is further narrowed when you consider that Wikipedia contributors are a fairly small (and shrinking) subset of on-line denizens – those that would even consider taking the time to edit a group Wiki. This small subset cannot and should not be considered to be even a remote facsimile of a public “consensus” on any subject, let alone one that might drive the opinion of a court.

The authors opine that the Wikipedia entry is likely more reliable when it is “common wisdom [that] is more likely to be correct.” If so, then why cite Wikipedia at all? Why wouldn’t it be the subject of judicial notice at that point? I say, back away from the Wikipedia and look to the underlying sources. I challenge their conclusion that Wikipedia is a “great source” in this context – go ahead and use it to look up information to settle a quick argument at the bar or to pull links or lists of other resources that might actually be curated and reliable. But don’t even think about going there to support something as important as a legal decision.

For what it is worth, and to sit on the other side of the fence for a moment, any citation to Wikipedia that relies solely on date and time is insufficient – I would hope that anyone citing the source as authority would also consider attaching a copy of the actual language on the page at the time of citation. Consider using a handy Internet Explorer or Firefox tool like iCyte, which freezes a page in time for later review. Then, be prepared to defend your use of this highly questionable resource.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Early Summer Cleaning – Mac-Style

Since I highlighted the Windows version of this Lifehacker list of essential free downloads, I think it only fair that I also include the companion list for Macs, even if I am not personally a Mac user. I will cop to being a Mac wannabe, though, and that counts for something.

There is definitely overlap between the Windows and Mac list, including Firefox and iTunes. There are also plenty of other offerings addressing productivity, communication, utilities, multimedia, and file backup/syncing.

Enjoy the free!

From Lifehacker.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

One More Reason to Love Firefox: High-Powered People / Profile Search

There are all sorts of reasons for attorneys and everyone else to be interested in what kind of information is lurking on-line about particular individuals. People get involved in business dealings and litigation, from parties to experts, from witnesses to jurors. Potential clients are on-line creating profiles and offering information about needs to be met. And attorneys who are sensitive to modern modes of communication are on-line, promoting their brands and, hopefully, following up to determine whether their on-line marketing is making the desired impression.

Enter Identify. Based on the Google Social Graph API, Identify is a Firefox plug-in that allows you to search of profile pages and track links.  When viewing a page, just click “control + i” and get a pop-up box showing connections from all around the Web associated with the person referenced on the viewed page. Primarily designed to profile pages, it can be used as well with web-pages with the proper coding and information.

If you have Firefox, you can get the plug-in here. Check out your own profiles and see how well you represent on the Web.

Hat tip to Marshall Kirkpatrick at ReadWriteWeb.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]