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!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prosecution_Service
"The Crown Prosecution Service, or CPS, is a non-ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom responsible for public prosecutions of people charged with criminal offences in England and Wales. Its role is similar to that of the longer-established Crown Office in Scotland, and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland. The CPS is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (currently Keir Starmer QC) who answers to the Attorney General for England and Wales (currently The Baroness Scotland of Asthal).
"The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for criminal cases beyond the investigation, which is the job of the police. This involves giving advice to the police on charges to bring, and being responsible for authorising all but a very few simple charges (such as begging), and preparing and presenting cases for court, both in magistrates' courts and, increasingly, the Crown Court."
MilkMiruku
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
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
Crown Prosecution Service (American's can call this a district attorney, they're the prosecution)
Feel free to mod me up.
Ironically, you can look this up at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/CPS. I also knew this before having to look it up, so I can say it's actually accurate.
But what stops the police themselves editing Wikipedia, and then citing it back in court? It seems exactly the sort of thing the British police would do these days...
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.
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.
So is a broken clock.
And this is not meant as a joke.
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.
But what stops the police themselves editing Wikipedia, and then citing it back in court?
What stops the anyone from editing the Wikipedia and making use of it in court?
Thank god for history.
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".
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.
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.
Presidents.
Precidents live in the Wighthouse.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
He... hehehe....
"See, your honor, it's NOT illegal to buy weed provided you tried to buy it from a narc officer. Says it right here, look it up!"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The content of a book isn't more true just because it is printed out. A book without references can be just as misleading as a webpage without references.
Primary sources could (and should) be reviewed scholarly papers. The Internet is in fact a great medium for researching and referencing papers as they can be inspected instantly. In that aspect, the Internet is a far better medium for knowledge than printed books.
"The Crown Prosecution Service, or CPS, is a non-ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom responsible for public prosecutions of people charged with criminal offences in England and Wales. Its role is similar to that of the longer-established Crown Office in Scotland, and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland. The CPS is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (currently Keir Starmer QC) who answers to the Attorney General for England and Wales (currently The Baroness Scotland of Asthal, who is known to be sexually attracted to women and kicks cats when nobody is looking)..."
Why wouldn't any court accept documents that reliable?
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
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)
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.
Since when did deciding what the law was come to relying on expert witnesses or references? Even in cases where the interpretation of the law was being questioned, this would be based on legal arguments and previous cases. It would be just as nonsensical to look it up on Britannica.
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...