Slashdot Mirror
Prosecutor Loses Case For Citing Wikipedia
Hugh Pickens writes "The Philippine Daily Inquirer reports on a recent case where the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) lost an appeal after seeking to impeach the testimony of a defendant's expert witness by citing an article from Wikipedia. In her brief, the defendant said 'the authority, alluded to by oppositor-appellant, the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders DSM-IV-TR," was taken from an Internet website commonly known as Wikipedia,' and argued that Wikipedia itself contains a disclaimer saying it 'makes no guarantee of validity.' The court in finding for the defendant said in its decision that it found 'incredible ... if not a haphazard attempt, on the part of the (OSG) to impeach an expert witness, with, as pointed out by (the defendant) unreliable information. This is certainly unacceptable evidence, nothing short of a mere allegation totally unsupported by authority.'"
who was actually correct about the facts of the matter?
sight unseen, i bet Wikipedia.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
The prosecutor was an idiot. Everyone knows you use the citations from the article, not the Wikipedia itself! :P
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Well, the disclaimer was there....a lawyer of all people should have known what that means in the legal sense...
Good.
"If you see a man on a horse, he is likely an enemy. Kill the man and eat the horse."
Don't these prosecutors have better things to do than try to keep people who want a divorce together by law?
Didn't read the TFA since this is Slashdot and all, but based on the summary how did the defendant know Wikipedia was their source? It just sounds like the defendant looked at the Wikipedia article and decided it was similar to what the prosecutor said.
but I wouldn't cite it in court! What a moron.
It's crowdsourced knowledge, which is likely correct in many cases but is still subject to errors and abuse from bored teenagers and people with an agenda.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
...One of the things duct tape cannot fix.
OTOH, you can find the DSM-IV here, among other places online.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
If the only citation you can come up with is Wikipedia then either you aren't doing your job or the citation is suspect. I find no issue with the court's decision, I'd be more inclined to beat the prosecutor with a wet noodle for failing to find a more reliable source.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
While the Wikipedia site is *likely* to be true. Likely to have been written by an expert and an authority on the subject. There is absolutely no guarantee of it's verity or authority.
For legal argument, the site would be an excellent place to start. It is easy to search, and the articles are written in quick scannable ways which would make research fast and quick. BUT, that research should *LEAD* to legally sound authority and more complete argument on any topic.
It would be horrible, horrible for the law to place Wikipedia on the pedestal of authority, and it would be bad for the public which wikipedia only exists because of its structure.
To exactly what about Wikipedia did the judge object? If the attorney had cited a print edition of Wikipedia, would his argument sudenly be more persuasive?
It seems to me that Wikipedia was just being more honest than most other sources in terms of its disclaimer.
But that's entirely because Legalese is it's own language.
Academia really hates wikipedia too, because they are forced to pay thousands of dollars for access to boring periodicals that modern youth today couldn't give two shits about viewing.
Try to find the story on wikipedia?
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
The judge proclaimed "[citation needed]"
... firm and I've seen this done, uncontested
I'm not sure what's sadder, that someone I work with has done this, or that the other side doesn't even understand how bad it is...
Are they saying, legally, that the DSM is faulty? Or are they saying that the DSM is faulty only when you get to it from Wikipedia? Or are they saying that the act of putting something on Wikipedia will make any source faulty?
I'm not saying that you should make it a habit of citing Wikipedia in court proceedings, but the entire outcome seems to boil down to "Oh. You mentioned Wikipedia. YOU LOSE."
In the US legal system that would be textbook hearsay.
Great ruling!
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It's like entering a random room, where a collection of random people happen to be hanging around. Once in the room, you close the door and shout out a question. What is *blank*?
Then, you wait an hour or so for everyone in that room to reach a majority consensus. Would you use that to refute an expert in the field?
Further, would you use the output from that room, when it could change at any moment? That is, sure... you print out an article, and take it to court. You use it to refute.
What if the article changes since you printed? What if it conflicts with your printed copy? You've claimed Wikipedia is authoritative, so naturally the newer copy must be better, yes? After all, since Wikipedia was 'correct' on the printed copy, it must also be 'correct' for the newer copy!
Now you've lost a court case!
Or how about this. Wikipedia is accepted as fact for that court case. A year goes by. That article has changed dramatically. Now, you can appeal? How did that article change? Did 100 of your friends take control of that article, for that purpose?
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a stable, reliable source of good information. All that can be said in Wikipedia's favour, is that it is a good START to gather information from. It has footnotes, and it is something to start with.
Frankly, if you visit a Wikipedia page, and start using that knowledge as valid information without verifying it externally, you're nuts!
He should have stayed at a holiday inn express...
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. OMFG PENIS LOL!!!1 It is used in the United States and in varying degrees around the world, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and policy makers."
The Wikipedia hath spoken.
More importantly, the breaking news ticker at the top filled me in that MILF not naming peace panel until gov’t team is complete. It's good to know they've started involving MILFs in the peace process, I just wish the government would finish completing the team so they can get to work.
So, I'm confused. Did they cite wikipedia, or did they cite the 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders DSM-IV-TR?' Because, to me, the latter sounds like it's an actual scientific publication from some sort of Industry Association of mental health professionals? I mean, if you go to Wiki, and Wiki cites an actual recognized publication, and you then cite that publication, does it make it any less valid just because you discovered that publication through Wikipedia?
I just did some quick Google searching, and it appears that is a publication of the American Psychiatric Association. Is there some question as to the credibility of the APA when it comes to mental health problems?
It seems that one obvious issue with citing wikipedia is that it constantly changes. There is no guarantee that the article which you cite is the same article that someone will read at a later date.
I wouldn't have challenged the reference to Wikipedia at all.
I'd have edited the artical to add the phrase, "Defendant did nothing illegal.", then showed the entry to the judge and asked for a dismissal with prejudice.
Oh...I'd also add "neener, neener, neener Mr. Prosecutor." to it as well.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
When a wiki page is changed, Wikipedia automatically generates a new 'version' of the page. You can cite a specific version of the page instead of the 'current'. Not sure many people know about that, but for any page, there is a 'history' link, and you can get a url from that page to access any specific version. As far as I know, that version link should remain valid and unchanged forever (or until Wikipedia shuts down, at least).
There's a complete change history available for every article on Wikipedia, and the ability to generate links to a specific version.
> I'm not sure what's sadder, that someone I work with has done this, or that the other side doesn't even understand how bad it is...
Perhaps if the fact taken from Wikipedia was unambiguously true? Just because you are in a court case doesn't mean you have to disagree on everything you can.
would have been funnier if the joke was not already made in the article heading.
"from the citation-needed dept."
Bob may have written the Wikipedia article. Just because he wrote, or was cited by, a Wikipedia article about it does not make is more true, even by a little. Now if two independent professors wrote articles, showing data supporting the claim at X is true, then yes, X is more likely to be true. Citing Wikipedia alone is a strong indicator that you have not done much to learn about a topic.
Wikipedia is about as completely accurate as the local weatherman, statistically speaking. Good place to start research, but the absolute wrong place to give a definative cite for. I have flunked students for giving Wikipedia references in their research papers.
This is a problem when citing any online work. Most academic citation styles have you include a date when citing an online work.
Well, that is after all the intent of Wikipedia, isn't it? Eliminating the idea of there being one "truth" apart from the opinion of the masses?
While this might have some noble intent, you can't very well be surprised when those in authority reject the entire concept. The idea that people might actually take a crowdsourced knowledgebase and present it as "truth" in matters of law is laughable because this use is diametrically opposed to the intent of the founders and maintainers of Wikipedia. The very idea that there might be an "expert" in the world that knows more or has a firmer grasp of anything compared to the knowledge of the great unwashed masses is abhorrent to the concept of Wikipedia.
What this means is that Wikipedia is "The People's Encyclopedia", created by "the people" for "the people." Fine, as long as its use is confined to "the people" it is probably suitable. But it does mean that using it as a reference in school, at law, science, government or any place where people actually believe in the concept of "truth" apart from the knowledge of crowds is forbidden.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Law and government are very interested in "truth" as a concept and it is presupposed that there are in fact experts that know what this truth is. Wikipedia is built on the idea that there is no one truth at all and that all truths are equal. Hence the continual editing of articles because over time what is considered to be the truth changes with the whim of the crowd.
I'd be more inclined to beat the prosecutor with a wet noodle
You Italians sure have weird and delicious forms of punishment.
Is it possible to be funnier than +5?
There's something screwy about this. The DSM-IV(TR) is *not* Wikipedia. Did the prosecutor actually cite Wikipedia instead of citing the DSM-IV(TR)?
If this was a US case, I'd try to find the court documents (from the original case and from the appeal) on PACER. But TFA is from "The Philippine Daily Inquirer" -- this isn't even a US case???
I feel that they should not have -- they were lazy, attempting a short cut. I suspect that they still billed their full fee as if they had done a proper job.
1. Actually, it probably doesn't matter.
Let me explain. It's not the court's role to judge that. A bunch of housewives, plumbers, clerks and whoever else couldn't escape jury duty, not only isn't qualified to judge if an article on mental diseases is correct, it's not even their role to do that. They have to listen to some expert testimony and decide strictly based on what they've heard.
Heck, even on Wikipedia basically that's why there's a "[citation needed]" tag. John Doe reading the article should just be pointed to the actual authority which said X or Y or Z.
But anyway, if the judge or the jury or whoever has to decide that expert X is full of it, they basically need a testimony of expert or authority Y which say so. That's how the system works. The prosecution simply failed to provide such a testimony.
It doesn't matter if you simply happen to be right. It matters if you can basically support that as evidence. Not just for Wikipedia. It could be something you heard on the bus, or remember from some sketch you saw on Youtube, or is something your grandfather used to say. It may even be right. What matters is if you can make a proper piece of evidence out of it. Otherwise it's just your personal opinion.
2. Actually, on a more personal opinion note, sight unseen, I would slap the prosecutor with a fish.
Diagnosing illnesses is hard. If you just read a list of symptoms, but don't have the training or the education, well, let's just say you can conclude that you have two dozen terminal diseases right now. Mental illnesses doubly so. Even actual trained psychiatrists often disagree about a diagnostic.
Just judging someone based on a couple of phrases out of context and something you once read on Wikipedia about the DSM IV is something that idiot internet trolls do, not something I expect done in a court of law.
Basically: the moment that prosecutor had to quote anything that had to do with the DSM IV, he should have known he's just not qualified to do it. Even if the information on Wikipedia may (or may not) be correct, he is a lawyer, not a psychiatrist. Reading about it on Wikipedia doesn't make him a mental health expert, just like my reading about Star Trek on Wikipedia doesn't make me a rocket scientist. He should have found a real expert to ask about and introduce him/her as witness.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Encyclopedias are only a starting point; you don't cite them in your paper, or in court. You go for their sources for your real research.
Not only do I completely agree with you for the reason you specify, but also academic honesty really demands this approach. The encyclopedia has only aggregated information for you, the actual knowledge/article/paper actually came from someone else, not the encyclopedia. The original source for information should be the one getting the credit, not the aggregating service.
Yes, but humor that good is often misunderstood and you end up with a -1 Flamebait, or a -1 Troll.
My goal in life is to get a +5 Troll posting. It's not much of a goal, but it's not much of a life.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Never use information as a reference unless it is willing to stand up for what it's said.
Using wikipedia for a reference is bad. Not because it's wrong, but because it can be taken out of context.
For example: Some guy says that a particular programming language is [insert feature here] but he means "when you include these libraries."
Wikipedia editor skims over that and checks the box for that feature in their article comparing languages to each other.
You cite Wikipedia.
You're not wrong, Wikipedia's not wrong, He's not wrong, but your citation is, because you're cutting corners.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
From TFA: "Philippine Daily Inquirer"
"The Inquirer is withholding the identities of the parties involved so as not to intrude on their privacy."
Where the hell is THEIR original citation? Usually various international case information is picked up by various law services (far as I know). Searching for most of the relevant terms of this article (like the presiding judge) in combination with other relevant terms of the article, only produce this, and things linking to it (mostly in the Philippines, of course).
Given the lack of reference here, there also appears to be no actual evidence that the OSG was citing wikipedia, aside from the ex-wife's brief.
But, given that I'm not a lawyer...I just prefer Associated Press, or failing that, a meaningful chain to follow in national/international news reports.
Here, we have absolutely nothing to go on, but a single foreign newspaper publishing something on their website. I'm sure anyone who COULD figure out where the hell this came from would get free mod points, but...it looks half-baked to me.
Nevermind elsewhere on the site, stories written by "DJ Yap" (I'm sorry, but even if someone's name was changed, newspapers would hire them and publish it why?): http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/metro/view/20100830-289493/House-painter-gets-14-years-for-drug-possession
"A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
sight unseen, i bet Wikipedia."
Which is why you are not a judge who has to decide what evidence can be used to impeach an expert witness.
People always say how Wikipedia could be wrong and you shouldn't cite things from it. Well, Wikipedia certainly isn't the only website crafted by human hands. In fact, I've seen books that were wrong, and I've certainly seen other websites that had inaccurate information. You should always, ALWAYS double check your information, no matter where it's from. Also, the chances of you going to a Wikipedia article that was JUST vandalized (they fix that pretty fast) and NOT noticing it is pretty slim. The vandals usually only blank the entire page or add obvious misinformation. Wikipedia isn't the only thing with this problem.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
> I'm not sure what's sadder, that someone I work with has done this, or that the other side doesn't even understand how bad it is...
Perhaps if the fact taken from Wikipedia was unambiguously true? Just because you are in a court case doesn't mean you have to disagree on everything you can.
If the fact is unambiguously true you'll also be able to find it somewhere other than Wikipedia.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
The level of "real funniness" can be calculated by multiplying a comments score by the length of the chain of replies trying to piggyback the funniness of the comment.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Did he cite the article in the original Klingon?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Have you looked at the science these experts use to come to their conclusions lately? Hell, in just the decade since I was in school a lot has changed.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
You can watch Beck on the TV, if you try to take your Rascal down to the Lincoln Memorial you're just going to get lost. And just for the record, you aren't married to Sarah Palin, okay? Sheesh. You'd think those nurses could figure out how to get a cranky old white guy to take his meds.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
-- just citing DSM-IV-TR, all by itself, is hardly a valid source either. The alleged maladies are simply voted on. No scientific proofs or tests to determine of someone is schizophrenic as opposed to OCD, manic or whatever.
In TFA, there is no indication that the OSG actually cited Wikipedia. There is only a statement by the petitioning ex-wife that the OSG cited the DSM-IV-TR, and that the DSM-IV-TR is mentioned in Wikipedia. Based on the facts presented in TFA, it very well could have been that the OSG never mentioned Wikipedia at all, but the petitioner cleverly tricked the judge into think that the DSM-IV-TR had "no guarantee of validity," because it's mentioned in Wikipedia.
TFA needs a big fat [citation needed]. As it stands, without a link to the actual case documents it's much less reliable than a typical Wikipedia article and we don't know what's really going on.
The summary is clear as mud, but it sounds like the prosecutors made reference to the DSM. Why refer to the wikipedia article on it? The DSM itself is the authority on psychological disorders. If wiki quoted the DSM correctly, then it is likely correct on the matter. So why did the prosecutor cite wiki, and not the actual authoritative source that wiki cites? Stupid.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You need to cite authoritative sources when required in support of your arguments. And, yes, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.
In addition, you need to cite Wikipedia if you use materials from Wikipedia, even if those materials are not authoritative. While not authoritative, Wikipedia is a decent source for illustrations and quotations of facts established by other sources. If you fail to cite Wikipedia in those circumstances, you commit plagiarism.
for finding references to other sources.
That's one reason I kinda understand why some schools ban the use of Wikipedia proper for school assignments...because all the kid has to do is use the referenced sources (in lieu of the "according to Hoyle" Wiki article) and none are the wiser.
But that's no different than any source of information, period. Anyone who takes the word of CNN, MSNBC, or (God forbid) Fox News WITHOUT CHECKING FOR THEMSELVES is setting themselves up to look stupid.
All these sources are great for starting your search...they are hardly the place to end it!
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
Honestly, anything could make it as a source for Wikipedia, which doesn't make the source any more credible. A source needs to be peer reviewed at the least.
Citations serve several purposes. The two main ones are (1) establishing facts, and (2) documenting and acknowledging where ideas or materials came from.
An authoritative source needs to be peer reviewed (or have some other reasonable quality control). Such a citation looks something like "As Jones [3] has shown, ..." or "Since we know that $\sigma(x)=0$ [17], we can infer..."
But you also need to cite any other source that contributed to your paper, authoritative or not. E.g. "The idea behind this work comes from Jones [4]. In this paper, we show that Jones' idea actually works." or "Figure 3 was taken from [19]." People often cite "personal communication", newspaper articles, internal memos, patent applications, and all sorts of other non-authoritative sources for this second purpose. If you fail to cite sources for any significant idea or materials in your paper, you are committing plagiarism.
And the internet sighed with relief, as the likelyhood of an onslaught of trial lawers wishing to doctor an article before citing it in court has been averted!
well said.
Seems that way, until you find out what "wet noodle" really means...
Except for pages where the history has been deleted. So there goes that argument up in smoke.
Wikipedia is fun to read, and sometimes points to interesting information (though I've clicked through a number of citations where the cited reference didn't agree with the article), but it's not really an encyclopedia.
If you're willing to take their "motto" seriously (... anyone can edit) and follow that thought to its logical conclusion, and keep that in mind while reading, there's nothing wrong with it. But if you're expecting "authority" or factual correctness, you're in the wrong place.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Actually, the saddest part is that in this case the one citation was apparently the preponderance of the evidence, and the decision turned on the validity of the primary source, and the court gave the appellant no opportunity to correct the error before killing the case.
1) Isn't hard to find - my local bookstore has a copy of it on the shelf, and I'm sure the OSG would have access to a copy, so why bother looking at Wikipedia at all. 2) Isn't used to diagnose mental illness. What it does do is classify them - basically it's a big book of definitions and billing codes. If you did want to diagnose someone from a book, you'd use the appropriate Handbook for Differential Diagnosis (also not hard to find a copy of). Of course, none of this matters, since the material in the book(s) needs to be interpreted and applied to a specific individual's case by someone qualified to make proper use of the information - you know, those guys who go to school for years and years then study under other practicioners for a few more years of residency.
Okay, first, that relation is not the same as the one you said in text. "Bob" here is the original source which Wikipedia cites. Your relation makes it look like Bob and Wikipedia are two separate sources, when it's really one. It should be:
P ( X | Bob says X is true && Wikipedia cites Bob) > P (X | Bob says X is true)
Which, sure, may be true for any random Bob on the internet. However,
P ( X | Bob says X is true && Bob is a recognized authority on X ) == P ( X | Bob says X is true && Bob is a recognized authority on X && Wikipedia cites Bob)
In other words, the Wikipedia cite modifies your conditional probability that Bob is a good source if and only if you otherwise have no clue as to whether or not Bob is a good source, and the WP link is your only hint. And yes, it should only modify the probability by a tiny bit. Meaning that if a WP cite is your only hint that the source is good, you should probably not cite that source in serious papers or in court.
Also, if you are not deciding whether or not Bob is a trustworthy source to cite, but rather hearing Charlie quote information that allegedly came from Bob originally, then:
P (X | Charlie cites recognized expert Bob saying X) > P ( X | Charlie cites Wikipedia which cites recognized expert Bob saying X)
Because if Charlie isn't citing Bob, but rather what Wikipedia says Bob says, then that's just another possible source of error and mis-quoting. Charlie should be citing Bob's work directly if he wants to claim Bob says something.
Basically, having the Wikipedia citation only improves things in a situation you should never find yourself in when writing a scholarly paper of making an argument in court. Being in that situation is itself bad, citing Wikipedia in any other situation is bad, ergo citing Wikipedia is bad.
In this particular case, the DSM-IV is the authoritative reference on the subject matter at hand. The fact that WP cites the DSM does not change the authoritativeness of the DSM one jot, and citing the WP to cite the DSM just means the citation is more likely to be incorrect.
The rule is very rational, as is this ruling.
The enemies of Democracy are
Actually 'Nobody Cares' is could be considered insightful. It doesn't really matter what source HS or Undergraduate students use for their papers because 'Nobody Cares' it is unlikely they are ever going to be published or read by anyone. It is not particularly useful to have someone studying a topic at this level write a report because they really don't have anything meaningful to say on the topic.
This is one of the things about our current education system that needs to change. We utilize the 'written report' format far to often. I've never had call to write out anything over 2 full pages in my working career. Even then anything that is written more than a paragraph or two stands a fair chance of being glanced at and dismissed.
mere allegation totally unsupported by authority
how does the judge know this? ;-)
Note that this happened in the Philippines, which is not exactly a bastion of legal scholarship to begin with. The U.S. courts have a different opinion on the matter, and I believe the judge in the instant matter was simply wrong for having dismissed the argument based solely on the fact that the information came from a summary in Wikipedia (which, last time I checked it, was in fact correct). For the American courts' take on Wikipedia, see, e.g., Alfa Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank, 475 F.Supp.2d 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2007):
The defendants raise two principal objections to Mr. Muravnik's testimony. First, they argue that his opinions should be excluded because they are based on “inherently unreliable” internet sources. (Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Reports and Testimony of Plaintiff's Experts (“Def.Memo.”) at 3). The defendants cite both Mr. Muravnik's references to Wikipedia and his use of internet sites such as the online version of Pravda.
To begin with, it is not clear that internet sources in general, or the ones cited by Mr. Muravnik in particular, are inherently unreliable. Countless contemporary judicial opinions cite internet sources, and many specifically cite Wikipedia. See, e.g., Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate, Inc., 459 F.3d 128, 133 n. 3 (1st Cir.2006); Reuland v. Hynes, 460 F.3d 409, 422 n. 1 (2d Cir.2006) (Winter, J. dissenting); Allegheny Defense Project, Inc. v. United States Forest Service, 423 F.3d 215, 218 n. 5 (3d Cir.2005); N'Diom v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 494, 496 (6th Cir.2006); United States v. Krueger, 415 F.3d 766, 769 (7th Cir.2005); Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303, 1312 (11th Cir.2004); Sacirbey v. Guccione, No. 05 Civ. 2949, 2006 WL 2585561, at *1 n. 2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2006); Applied Interact, LLC v. Vermont Teddy Bear Co., No. 04 Civ. 8713, 2005 WL 2133416, at *11 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 6, 2005). While citing a website in a judicial opinion is not analytically identical to basing an expert opinion on such a source (which, as explained below, is not what Mr. Muravnik in fact does), the frequent citation of Wikipedia at least suggests that many courts do not consider it to be inherently unreliable. In fact, a recent and highly-publicized analysis in the magazine Nature found that the error rate of Wikipedia entries was not significantly greater than in those of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Jim Giles, Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head (Dec. 14, 2005), http://www. nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html (finding that “the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.”) And, indeed, the defendants do not point to any actual errors in the entry cited by Mr. Muravnik. Thus, despite reasonable concerns about the ability of anonymous users to alter Wikipedia entries, the information provided there is not so inherently unreliable as to render inadmissible any opinion that references it.
Clearly, it was a veiled reference to the FSM, and not the cuisine of Italy that takes HIS form. Sheesh
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Dumbass......
I'm posting this comment to an Internet website commonly known as Slashdot.
Precisely, IMHO, the biggest value of Wikiepdia is that it's a "smart Google". It gives us a bunch of places where to look for further information. It's not without reason that someone always appends that [citation needed] tags when this requisite is not fulfilled.
I can tell you that the editors are extremely meticulous, with automated software that will quickly find many cases of infringment, and a strict set of rules covering copyright, proper sourcing, conflict of interest, etc. Wikipedia is not allowed in a court of law because the freedom with which they allow people to edit makes it impossible for the editorial staff to make guarantees. That said, for the average user, wikipedia's transparent editorial process and strict rules about citation makes it superior in many respects to other media, where the the editorial process can be politically driven and hidden from view. Let's not be naive guys, any form of media that is commercially driven has many potential issues. To give them a pass while lambasting wikipedia is ridiculous.
If the fact is unambiguously true you'll also be able to find it somewhere other than Wikipedia.
Yes, but Wikipedia is a great place to find information that's unambiguously true. Such information is usually worded plainly there, unlike many other sources I find myself having to use (often published journal articles that define the term within the context of the research). If no parties object to the use of Wikipedia (or, rather, "this piece of information retrieved from this URL on this date at this time") then there is no problem, and it's probably just a stepping stone for both sides to use in performing contentious dissemination anyway (otherwise, you wouldn't be in court, you'd be sitting there agreeing on definitions and such).
By your British/French phrasing, do you mean the issue of common-law systems versus civil-law systems?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
as if a million college students were screaming "Arrgh!"
According to the expert witness from the RIAA, that's because all college students are pirates.
ah, the adversarial practice of making justice into a fight between opposing lawyers doesn't really make sense sometimes, as it throws another variable into the mix that's irrelevant to what the truth of the matter actually is.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The DSM-IV-TR is the current version of the definitive criteria for mental and psychological disorders published by the Americn Psycholpgocal Association and the Americn Psychiatric Association. It's a single volume costing about as much as a typical law book, and would be part of the library of any lawyer dealing with mental health issues. I am shocked that the court's library would not have included a copy or that it would not have been readily available to them. The APA doesn't post the whole thing in one place free to protect its copyright and sales revenue, but you can find just about all of it quoted reliably on line there or elsehwere apart from, or enabling you to corroborate or disprove, any part quoted in Wikipedia. Now there are two fun questions, with the opinion unavailable or at least I haven't found it. Does the advance publication of the DSM-V, which is in final peer review to replace the DSM-IV-TR, agree with the DSM-IV-TR on the point in issue? I don't know the Philipine Rules of Evidence, but the DSM-IV-TR is a "learned treatise" often used to cross-examine a mental health expert here in the U. S., but, fortunately or unfortunately depending upon whether your client has money, you usually have to have another expert offer it who can understand and explain what it says. In my practice, which included a lot of mental health law issues and expert evidence related to it, psychiatrists could and did look at the same data and the DSM-IV-TR and reach significantly different medical and ultimate conclusions. As for legal sanity - insanity issues, where the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact is whether or not the defendant knew the difference between right and wrong, people are regularly found sane who insist that, of course they know the difference, notwithstanding that they undisputedly are firmly and unalterably convinced, and acted out of such convictions, that they are married to Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe, acting on orders from God or Napoleon, or facing imminent rape by Bigfoot. Thank God that client thought the young Brownie Scouts he thought were Bigfoot and shot at were nine feet tall and missed. If you think he's crazy, the state hospital turned him loose after ten days and the sheriff gave him his gun and shells back. I've dealt with good and bad psychiatric "experts," some of the latter of whom diagnosed people they had spent no more than three minutes with, if they ever talked to them at all, immediately jumped to the conclusion that someone was paranoid, delusional, dangerous to themselves and others, etc., just because he had started to tell them what someone else he knew had told him that another psychiatrist treating that person had also believed. Incidentally, the evidence is clear that most mentally ill people are no more dangerous than anybody else. Of course, some, are just plain mean apart from any mental illness, just like some from any given group.