Wikipedia Used By Courts?

[HardOCP News]

The NY Times says that Wikipedia is popping up in court cases more and more. The trend bothers some people, this is what one attorney had to say on the subject:

Citation of an inherently unstable source such as Wikipedia can undermine the foundation not only of the judicial opinion in which Wikipedia is cited, but of the future briefs and judicial opinions which in turn use that judicial opinion as authority.

 

[Ockie]

Oh thats good to know, so instead of needing a lawyer in the future you just need to quickly edit the wiki before you go to court

 

[Draax]

Is someone challenging the validity of the bearatross? or Raptor Jesus?

 

[TechLarry]

I like WikiPedia. It's become more useful to me than the ad-forsaken Google these days.

But this is scary...

 

[GJSNeptune]

So Wiki editors are gonna start popping up dead instead of testifying witnesses?

Maybe Wiki should have a whole new section labeled Testimony And Eyewitness Accounts.

Or not.

Wiki's a great and quick reference, and it's eerily self-aware. It's up to jurors to decide to trust it. That's the important part.

 

[DeChache]

Wiki's great for a quick reference to figure out something but it should never be taken seriously and used for nothing more than a guide to point you in the right direction for your research.

I had to sit threw a 10 min rant today in my Oral Communications class on why Wiki is not a valid source. So if its not good enough for gen ed college courses its not good enough for use in a courtroom.

 

[GJSNeptune]

So if its not good enough for gen ed college courses its not good enough for use in a courtroom.

According to your professor, anyway. Would be interesting to take a poll and see what the rest of them think, assuming some of them even know what it is

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

Given the hurdles it takes to get a court to use your CREDIT REPORT as evidence in an identifty theft suit, I can't see any judge allowing Wiki as anything but hearsay in any trial.

Sometimes hearsay IS allowed, but it holds lesser merit than other evidence and can NEVER be the sole determining factor in a trial.

 

[mikeblas]

It's sad that people trust Wikipedia so much. It says, itself, that it doesn't guarantee accuracy. And it's full of mistakes, biased views, and so on. Yet people just gobble it up, believing it's factual and unquestionable.

 

[piako]

When a court-appointed special master last year rejected the claim of an Alabama couple

Um like a 4th degree scottish rite freemason?

- -

I have professors who regularly refer to wikipedia. Wikipedia becomes pretty lame though after you begin to start reading books on a certain subject then realize about 1/2 of the wikipedia articles are totally incorrect.

 

[mikeblas]

start reading books on a certain subject then realize about 1/2 of the wikipedia articles are totally incorrect.

And then you realize the other half of the articles are about Pokemon.

 

[DocFaustus]

And then you realize the other half of the articles are about Pokemon.

Well as long as the Pokemon articles are the correct ones, the courts should have nothing to worry about.

 

[Draax]

By the way, if anyone is interested in seeing the stuff that was once on wikipedia, that has been removed you can see it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe..._stub._You_can_help_Wikipedia_by_expanding_it.

Some of it is pretty funny.

 

[Draax]

Well never mind, it was just deleted.