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.
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.
So you're saying someone with a technical background but no specific knowledge of item x should not be allowed to study the specifics? Being an expert isn't knowing everything, it's knowing the background, methods and having a good working knowledge of the field, not knowing every single piece of info in that field.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
"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
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.
A link to a teaser summery that references and article that requires a paid subscription... And it is somehow marked informative. Good example of the problem here.
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.
houstonbofh, the point of the discussion there is not the article, as actually the people there even say they didn't read the article. The discussion is about wikipedia's, and people in general, relation to truth today, which is decided by popularity. Similar as here in slashdot by choosing which comments get shown and not.
And about people basing knowledge on summeries without checking the source information. My comment was about people getting bumped up for providing information that links to hidden source material, and no one notices. No one actually checks the facts anymore, (Investigative journalism my ass) and it is coming back to bite us.
Tell that to every high school teacher in america. As far as they're concerned the ability to memorize every piece of useless trivia thrown at you over an entire year means far more than your ability to actually find the solution to a given problem.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
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.
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".
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?
But why should they have the ability to edit it?
The martial arts have deep historical and cultural roots. The weapon was often the signature work of a master craftsman.
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.
First, I am not disagreeing with you. I am just pointing out that we are having a discussion on an article most of us have not read. That is the problem. How many times are goofy comments here responded to with "Read the article?" It used to be that facts were born out by research, and now it is by consensus. (Like "The world is flat...") And the Wikipedia issue is just more of this in another place. Read the wiki, and do not check the sources...
And no I did not read the article. It was locked behind a fee. It does sound interesting, however.
None of my teachers felt that way in 4 years of high school.
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.
Out of 4 schools in three states I didn't meet a single HS level math teacher that didn't feel that way. Consider yourself lucky for having studied under the very small minority of HS teachers that can't be outthought by a spoon of yeast.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
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?
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.
Tell that to every high school teacher in america. As far as they're concerned the ability to memorize every piece of useless trivia thrown at you over an entire year means far more than your ability to actually find the solution to a given problem.
Flip side: Talk to high school students. They feel they should not actually have to learn anything, and just get A's. Any test that requires them to actually know something, use a little reason, and come up with an answer that is not directly word for word from a book is unfair; and their parent's will let you know that and expect you to give their darling an A.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
To acheive a "background" in an area, you do require simple rote learning of certain basics. Reaching a certain competency in mathematics, science and use of the english language, all essential to some degree in everyday life nevermind a profession, does amongst other things, require rote learning of basic information. Also, kids are in general pretty good at such rote learning and learning things by repetition (which is unfortunately "boring" and indeed fairly pointless for kids who've already grasped something).
There has been plenty of experimentation with alternative teaching methods, and while some useful experience has been garnered by this, in my mind it has also shown that we merely need to improve and suppliment traditional learning, rather than replace it entirely as the ideology warriors would have us do.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Well, there still are things that need to be memorized (or at least, it's more convenient to memorize them than having to look them up each time you need them), but there are strategies to make it easier.
For example, I've never memorized more than one third of the basic trigonometric formulae. When I had a test involving them (and we weren't allowed a formulae sheet), the first thing I did was tracing a trigonometric circle on my draft, then using it and the formulae I knew to retrieve the whole set of formulae (or retrieve each formula as needed). Same can be said with several mathematical tools.
There's nothing like $HOME
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.
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.
Edit? How about editorialise, revise, review and completely control all information on the page, and all access to page edits. The ability to twist the article to their own point of view, lock it down and keep it there for as long as they hold an interest. The ability to undo edits they disagree with and ban those who try to set things right.
That is how we should assess the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. Not by the information on it, but by the process through which that information is created. Right now the process is rotten and corrupt, and so is Wikipedia. As a whole.
May the Maths Be with you!
Did you look at the post? I only highlighted one bit, and that was what I was responding to. His comment of "At least they'll be right some of the time" is a poor justification of a source.
As to Wikipedia, I think it makes a terrible source, but a nice reference. As a repository of knowledge it is undependable as many well known failures prove. But the citations allow you to do some real research. The problem is the people that don't finish up by doing the research.
Ahhh... I get your point. But I was making a different one. :)
Put up or shut up
I see the answer is not to put up the evidence, and instead hide any support for Wikipedia with mod abuse. Note to mod: just because you disagree, doesn't make it a troll. Why don't you put up the evidence, if you disagree?
I think this proves that there is no reason to suspect Wikipedia as anymore unreliable than other sources, and you can't trust random posters on a forum who will make stuff up without references, and hide anyone who disagrees. Unlike Wikipedia - putting {{fact}} is the "Put up or shut up" - if you can't put up the reference, the material gets removed. Imagine if it operated such that unsourced material couldn't be removed, and anyone who disagreed had their edits hidden? It'd be a shambles.