Slashdot Mirror
UK Police Told To Use Wikipedia When Preparing For Court
Half-pint HAL tips news of UK prosecution lawyers who are instructing police to study information on Wikipedia when preparing to give expert testimony in court.
"Mike Finn, a weaponry specialist and expert witness in more than 100 cases, told industry magazine Police Review: 'There was one case in a Midlands force where police officers asked me to write a report about a martial art weapon. The material they gave me had been printed out from Wikipedia. The officer in charge told me he was advised by the CPS to use the website to find out about the weapon and he was about to present it in court. I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up.' Mr. Finn, a former Metropolitan Police and City of London officer and Home Office adviser, added that he has heard of at least three other cases where officers from around the country have been advised by the CPS to look up evidence on Wikipedia."
After all, snopes is always correct.
However, had it been defense lawyers coaching the cops to use wikipedia for official functions, it would have been hilarious.
Wikipedia is now the source of truth, but the problem with it is that it has nothing to do with truth but only with an agreement about already published sources, where complete nonsense almost inevitably follows.
An interesting discussion on Wikipedia as Truth by popularity is here:
http://www.pandalous.com/nodes/truth_by_popularity
Expert witness's shouldn't be allowed to study before preparing for court. A judges job is to read, an expert should be an expert.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
Just like police testimony in general!
If you're using acronyms, you should identify what they stand for since there are lots of readers from outside the UK. "Characters per second" perhaps?
Is CPS such a common abbreviation that every reader is expected to know what it stands for?
I'd rather have them look stuff up on Wikipedia than not do any research at all, I suppose. At least they'll be right some of the time.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
What makes this a problem? Is it a problem? Is the contention "what makes an expert" or that a supposed expert isn't able to recall the information from resident memory and experience?
This is problematic, however, when wp provides non-factual information. In my mind, it calls to credulity the "expert witness" concept in general. If we've got expert witnesses having to look things up to provide testimony on them, what is their value? Especially in light of the supposed factual question.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Seriously? You can't trust the wikipedia article on The Gun That Shoots Dogs That Bar Bees? How the fuck are we going to convict people who wield it now?
Judge: [Citation needed]
Jury: Speedy delete
When I read stories like this I imagine people going to sources other than Wikipedia (like, say, a textbook) and just doggedly believing everything they read. At least with Wikipedia (most) people have the sense to take everything they read with a grain of salt. Follow the citations people. Do your own research. If you're so easily convinced that something is "truth" then its not Wikipedia that's the problem.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up." I think I'd like a little more detail as to what facts he believed and which he didn't, or am I supposed to take his word for it, as he is an "expert". The beauty of wikipedia is it gives you some recourse to ascertain the truth or falsity of a statement via the citations, his statement did not. Wikipedia 1, Expert 0
Can't we assess the quality of Wikipedia as a whole, instead of declaring it useless because people write stupid things about celebrities or martial arts weapons?
Seriously... What do you expect, if you look up an article on a martial arts weapon, if teenagers/kids/TMNT fans have the ability to edit it? It's like all the times that "news reporters" get annoyed because Republicans edit the entry on Democrat senators, or v.v. and invent stupid stuff about them.
The rest of wikipedia can be wonderful and valuable information, written by people who are experts in their fields. Let's cheer it for that!
At least in this country, the standards of evidence and what is permissible and what isn't is based on previous court rulings. These are called precidents. Secondly, precidents set by higher courts affect all courts beneath it, however precidents can (and are) reinterpreted to fit local circumstance. What does this have to do with wikipedia? Nothing -- yet.
Here's the problem: The life of the law isn't knowledge (the present), it's experience (the past). The law can only ever look backwards. Which means that it is always at least one step behind the state of the art. It also depends on every judgment made remaining correct in perpetuity; If copying a music file is wrong now, then unless the law changes, it will always be wrong, even if the methods, economy, societal attitudes, etc., change -- the law will continue to get it's pound of flesh from hapless victims because the law can only look backwards. Because all of these flaws are systemic and cannot be amended, the system is highly dependent on the integrity of the decision-making process. And like all systems, unless standards are rigorously enforced, the margins will start to decay -- whether it's a safety margin, error margin, or civil rights margin, it will decay.
Introducing a source of information which is inherently unreliable into a process that absolutely depends on the integrity of information put into it is not just merely incompetent -- it's grossly negligent.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Lawyer: "Mr. Finn, would you please tell us what you know about ninjas?"
Mr. Finn: "Certainly. 1. Ninjas are mammals. 2. Ninjas fight ALL the time. 3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people."
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 Nuff said.
In five years, Wikipedia will likely become the most authoritative source for all basic information. It really is becoming one of the most amazing cooperative human endeavors when you consider it's scope and scale on even the most mundane and obscure topics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_for_Positive_Sexuality
While I'm not saying Wikipedia is more creditable it's not like other sources of information are as reliable as one would think. During my academic days I would find journals riddled with illogical conclusions, misleading facts, and statistics w/ absolutely no citations or indications on where they came from. While tracking some facts down I found surprising evidence against what several highly credited researchers stated in their articles. Now back to wikipedia... at least wikipedia is convenient. I can check out the history see if any weird changes were made, or if there's a discussion on the issue. If I find facts contrary to the original writers I can bring them into the argument, and they can be discussed at length if needed. W/ an academic journal I have to write a review, and most likely get ignored since I'm not really anybody of academic importance.
Considering the fact that lawyers use MySpace and facebook to gather evidence, why should this be a surprise? I think Wikipedia is generally a good source for facts. However, I think anyone who uses the internet AT ALL for important facts is very foolish. I could get a personalized URL, make up a page full of total nonsense, and there's going to be someone out there citing it as gospel, so to speak. First step in getting facts you can depend on: Get off the internet and crack open a book. Stop being LAZY, because looking up stuff on the internet is EASY.
Honestly, how stupid are people? I really don't understand. Wikipedia is an amazing source of information. Anyone who wants an introduction to a topic that they know nothing about can start with Wikipedia. I honestly don't know a better way to get an introduction on most topics. That said, people should believe, but verify what they read on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not perfect, but the error rate is lower than most sources. Furthermore, the Wikipedia error rate in some cases can be lower than retaining a consultant who is an expert on a subject. It all depends on what the expert is being paid to say. If money or people's lives depend on the answer, it is especially important to verify Wikipedia's information.
At this point, I would find fault with someone doing research and did not review Wikipedia's entry.
"Trust but verify" It doesn't get any more simple than that.
Besides, Wikipedia's entries are rarely exhaustive. Wikipedia provides good overviews of subjects with an error rate lower than most other sources of information. The key word here is overview. Anyone interested in a deep understanding of topic should read the Wikipedia entry and then dig deeper.
The 5th Amendment is a multiple Grammy-winning American popular music vocal group, whose repertoire also includes pop, R&B, soul, and jazz.
The 5th Amendment was best-known during the late 1960s and early 1970s for popularizing the hits "Up, Up and Away", Wedding Bell Blues", "Stoned Soul Picnic", "One Less Bell to Answer", "(Last Night) I Didn't Get to Sleep at All", and "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In", as well as the eponymous 5th Amendment and The Magic Garden LP recordings.
There is lots of very useful information on the internet. Martial Arts weapons are a perfectly good example of finding high-quality, even admissable evidence. There is a Youtube series devoted for researching just such a topic. Feel free to search for "Ask a Ninja".
Simply mentioning Wikipedia will earn you a long chat, in which it is explained that the site entirely made up and you will get in trouble if you're seen using it.
But when the administrators are asked to write a report about a computer related discipline of a student, they turn in several pages of Wikipedia articles.
First, I think it is awesome to have another example of user generated media reaching the big leagues.
Second, I think it is great for cops to seek truth through research. I would like to see more of this sort of behavior. It is primarily those cops who fail to seek truth through research that are problematic. If a good cop finds out he's got the wrong suspect, he will get that person cleared and go after the real perp. Bad cops are still a problem, but research doesn't change that.
Third, as noted by others, Wikipedia is a good research tool when used the way all research tools should be; with skepticism, verification, and critical thinking. Cops, particularly detectives, are trained in such thinking. It is how they find bad guys. To the extent that they are not skilled in that art, it is because of a failure to retain sharp enough cops. Fix city hall or increase compensation, but don't blame Wikipedia.
Finally, and I think most importantly, think about the fact-checking this provides for Wikipedia. If the opposing attorney knows that information is coming from Wikipedia, he or she is going to target that info and try to break it. They will present their contrary findings, if any, in court. Those proceedings will be public and can be used to vet Wikipedia content. Heck, the attorney him or herself might submit the corrections.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
If they'd posted an "Ask Slashdot" story they'd have a million or so armchair experts willing to provide testimony at the drop of a hat.
If you're just learning for fun, then most of the time you can just read.
If the topic is somewhat controversial, check out the discussion page to see what topics are being avoided due to lack of agreement, what points of view (POVs) are being squashed, and what POV pushing may happen to be in the article when you read it.
Always pay attention to things that just don't seem right.
If you're reading for something serious where you have to be right (a research paper, a trial, etc.), don't believe anything that isn't sourced and make sure the sources say what the article claims they say.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Wikipedia is a nice tool. To look up something, for your personal, private use where a wrong information can't do much more harm than maybe make you look like a fool at the next party when you repeat it and someone who actually knows the subject tells you how it really is. No harm done. Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is right about 99% of the time, fact checked and sourced, but the fact that ANYONE can edit also means that the moment you look up something might be JUST the moment some moron edited the page you visit to push his version of reality and truth.
Wikipedia is NO source for anyone looking for hard facts for a scientific study, for legal advice or (even worse) medical advice. It's like the old saying, you don't know where it's been, and you don't know who edited it last. The moment the life, wellbeing or freedom of a person or the usefulness of a study is at stake, use something more reliable.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Here he says some of the stuff was "made up". In the old model the "expert" himself makes the stuff up live at the court...
I'm too lazy to go looking for the study that compared wikipedia's accuracy with that of some traditional encyclopedias and found out that wikipedias accuracy perfectly compared to the ones printed on dead trees.
Some people just don't get it, wikipedia is a vault of interconnected concepts and ideas, not a truth engine.
What is this alleged "martial arts weapon" that was supposed to be written about and can we get a link to the article state when it was given to him?
... but where's Pedobear in all of this?!?
1) Hack wikipedia with laughably ludicrous info
2) Destroy prosecution's credibility
You forgot step 1.5: Convince the marks not to follow the citations (if any)
You know, this raises an interesting question... What happens if a prosecution is depending on Wikipedia "facts", but some article that could have been useful for the defense was deleted from wikipedia on the basis of not being "noteworthy" enough?
Wikipedia really is becoming a monster. Which isn't surprising, considering that it's essentially an attempt to centralise and rule over what was once an open, freely spoken collection of facts (albeit with lots of noise) spread across the web.
What stops the anyone from editing the Wikipedia and making use of it in court?
If so, the other side will argue that the article misrepresents its references.
Put up or shut up: show me the evidence that shows that Wikipedia is no more accurate than random data. Indeed, even show me the evidence that it is significantly unreliable compared with sources that people regularly accept without question (other encyclopedias, the media, people like you posting on Slashdot).
Otherwise I'll just point out that even a broken clock posting on Slashdot might have a point some of the time. The irony is that whilst dismissing and ridiculing material on Wikipedia out of hand, even when it's referenced, people happily swallow up unreferenced unsupported statements from an anonymous poster on an online forum (which, incidentally, Wikipedia does not accept as a reliable source), simply because it fits with their pre-existing prejudice against the site.
Last time I looked, broken clocks didn't give a reference to a working clock. So for any article that is referenced (which these days on Wikipedia, is just about any article on mainstream or non-trivial topics), your analogy is not relevant.
"I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up."
Kinda sounds like the testimonies from a lot of "expert" witnesses. I guess Wikipedia DOES belong in court.
First of all, some entries in wikipedia are probably written by experts in their field. Others written by well-meaning but misinformed individuals. Then their are the complete lies and fabrications.
But what if Wikipedia could pay experts to write entries? What if they could have expanded entries as well? For instance I'd love more in depth entries for scientific entries. I do not see anything wrong with people being paid for what they do, and I would actually be willing to donate money to wikipedia for this. I am sure I already can donate, but can I donate with the specific intention of improving certain sections of wikipedia?
Wikipedia is fantastic, and the more relevant it becomes, the more known and famous, the more it can improve. That they found out that the entry was wrong is a good thing. Let me repeat that, it is a good thing. This way it can be improved. What you should be afraid of are things that aren't discovered, or even worse, silenced. Big nasty (often religious or very rich) groups tends to suppress information. Information should be free, to be verified, discussed, and if needed corrected.
There are an unbelievable number of weapons out there, and it is unlikely that all of them are documented in mainstream or even specialist sources. So where do you look for information on something that was taken off of the body of common thug. You can do guesswork or rely upon hearsay, or you can look at non-traditional sources that document esoteric things. The Wikipedia is probably one of the more reliable esoteric sources that you can use because it has a number of checks and balances built into it.
Used properly, the Wikipedia can also be used to discern valid from invalid information. First of all, an officer can use their own background knowledge to discern what is obviously correct and what is obviously incorrect. The Wikipedia also provides a history of edits and (at some level) who edited it. If they do not provide a username, the police are in for a real treat because they (being the organisation, not necessarily the officer involved) do know what to do with information like that.
As they would be tossed out of court after judgement.
Morons.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Facts don't make an expert, If the court wanted facts they could look them up in a book (or wikipedia). I'm doing a degree in chemistry and despite what some of my tutors think being able to recall the specific heat capacity of n2o is fairly useless, however being able to interpret the data to give you useful information is what experts do!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is not a primary source. It's excellent for background and self-education but for any serious purpose such as preparing expert testimony you must follow the links to the primary sources (and get those links from two or more secondary sources). This applies to textbooks and handbooks as well.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
ROFL.
> Finally, and I think most importantly, think about the fact-checking this provides for
> Wikipedia. If the opposing attorney knows that information is coming from Wikipedia, he
> or she is going to target that info and try to break it.
She is going to tell the judge the information came from an encyclopedia and the judge is going to disallow it, in the USA.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
From the article:
Eleanor Coner, information officer of The Scottish Parent Teacher Council, said last year: "We accept that as a sign of the times, but schools must teach pupils not to believe everything they read.
That is dangerous coming from a teacher. If they teach the children critical thinking skills then it will be impossible to properly indoctrinate them.
I remember reading in my high school history book on how the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to the US Constitution assures rights to the individual but the 2nd amendment assures the states have the right to have a police force. My critical thinking skills at the time led me to question that interpretation, and I am quite certain now that the Constitution as amended does guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Judging from my conversations with people about current events it would seem that many people had similar writings in their high school history books and did believe what they read.
Perhaps the Scottish Parent Teacher Council does not have that concern since they do not have the right to self defense codified as we do on this side of the Atlantic. The teaching of not believing everything you hear might work in their favor after the news articles on shootings and stabbings going up after the banning of the carrying of firearms and knives. No Scott would actually injure another with a weapon to steal a few quid from their wallet, right? Carrying weapons is illegal and no one would break that law, right? Never mind that theft is illegal as well.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Second, I think it is great for cops to seek truth through research
...and every college professor in the country just cringed. Looking up a subject in Wikipedia is not "research" in the traditional sense you are using it.
There's a reason many schools and professors don't allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source in papers.
Please help metamoderate.