Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Prosecutor Loses Case For Citing Wikipedia

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the citation-needed dept.

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.'"

33 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. so... by conspirator57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:so... by AndrewNeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You go for their sources for your real research.

      Which, when using Wikipedia, should be easy, if the article is properly sourced. This isn't always the case, though.

    2. Re:so... by codegen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      sight unseen, i bet Wikipedia

      I think you would loose that bet. If you actually read the article (I know, I know, this is slashdot), you would find that it involves the psychological evaluation of a woman and her husband. At the trial, the expert who had done the evaulation was not cross examined, and in the appeal the OSG attempted to impeach the expert using general information from Wikipedia. Using an article from any general information source (encyclopedia britannica or wikipedia) to attempt to contradict a specific evaluation of a specific case by a recognized expert in the field is foolhardy at best and deserves to be shot down. In Addition, the court noted that the Solicitor General had access to government mental health experts that could be used, and failed to use them.

      --
      Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    3. Re:so... by wjousts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because nobody cares about the path to the answer, it's not important. Nobody cares that you started with Wikipedia to get the real reference to a reliable source. You cite the original source of a fact.

      Otherwise were does it end? I started with some internet forum where some anonymous poster told be to Google it. That lead me to Wikipedia that cited this paper! Nobody cares!

    4. Re:so... by davev2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it is reasonable to assume an article written by amateurs is much more reliable than an expert witness, a practicing psychologist, who actually interviewed the people in question.

      /sarcasm

    5. Re:so... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it is reasonable to assume an article written by amateurs is much more reliable than an expert witness, a practicing psychologist, who actually interviewed the people in question.

      Yes, it is. First, the "amateurs" who wrote the Wikipedia article are almost certainly people trained in its field, in the same way that the physics and computer articles are generally edited by physicists and computer people. Second, the Wikipedia editors have not been paid to testify on behalf of either party and are completely unbiased authorities with respect to this particular case.

      That said, the prosecutor is still a jackass. Wrong way: cite Wikipedia in court. Right way: use Wikipedia to bone up on the subject at hand, then cherry pick evidence from the articles it references that support your position and cite those articles directly.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:so... by davev2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it is NOT.

      The problem lies here:

      First, the "amateurs" who wrote the Wikipedia article are almost certainly people trained in its field, in the same way that the physics and computer articles are generally edited by physicists and computer people.

      First, The writers and editors do not have to be people trained in the field and this is acknowledge by Wikipedia in its disclaimer. Second, anyone can change almost any Wikipedia article to support a position, then site that version of the article.

      Those two facts render any and every Wikipedia article less reliable than the testimony of a doctor who has examined and interviewed the people at the heart of the case.

      To suggest otherwise would be to say that one is better off relying on Wikipedia articles to make medical diagnoses over one's doctor.

    7. Re:so... by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tomorrow, someone could come along and edit a load of bullshit into the articles which you have so carefully written. Short of tracking him down and tracking you down and hauling you both into court to be cross-examined, what’s to prove that you are more authoritative on the subject than he is?

      So it gets reverted – big deal. Now you just have to find the editor who reverted it and cross-examine him/her too.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    8. Re:so... by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can say without equivocation that my knowledge of those subjects is second to none.

      [citation needed]

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    9. Re:so... by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I understand that the idea is to point students to original sources, but I happen to think that the mindless application of the rule that you can't cite encyclopedias is wrong headed. There are often bits of information that need to be sourced but aren't really worth looking up in primary sources or for which primary sources simply aren't worth obtaining to make a point. If it's OK to cite secondary sources, it should be OK to cite a reliable encyclopedia.

      For example, if I wanted to assert that Caspar Weinberger succeeded Eliot Richardson as Secretary of Health and Education and Welfare, is it really less scholarly to cite Britannica than to leave the assertion unsourced or to city Joe Blow's webpage (which is allowed)?

      Another example would be John Wilkins' book, published in 1668, entitled "An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language". I had reason recently to describe the contents of that book in regard to the applicability of web ontologies to scientific data sharing. Now I live in Boston, and there is so far as I know only one copy of that work available for public inspection within reasonable driving distance. Nonetheless the work is widely cited in secondary sources. I *should* take the car trip to Gordon College if I am relying heavily upon the contents of that work. If, however, my purposes are satisfied by citing secondary sources, there is no rational reason to prefer some individual author's account of the contents of Wilkins' book over Britannica's.

      It a bit silly that there are instances you can cite Joe Blow's webpage but not Britannica.

      In short:

      * where a less reliable secondary source than Britannica would be acceptable, citing Britannica should be allowed.

      * where a fact might reasonably go unsourced as "common knowledge" (e.g. Elliot Richardson's tenure at Dept. of HEW), then citing an reliable encyclopedia should be encouraged.

      * where it is reasonable to forbid the citation of Britannica, *other* secondary sources should likewise be forbidden, unless they are sources that have been peer reviewed in the field *as* reliable compendia of a discipline's knowledge.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:so... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole idea smacks of academic elitism. I edit Wikipedia articles on a few different subjects and I can say without equivocation that my knowledge of those subjects is second to none.

      Yeah the point in "academic elitism" is that it deals with people who have a high personal opinion of their abilities and enough time to tell everyone about it by requiring methodical peer review. It's possible that you are brilliant, but uttering "I can say without equivocation" isn't adequate demonstration.

      without any proof of the incorrectness of the statement, it gets completely disregarded.

      I hear you rape goats. Without any proof of incorrectness, I don't think people should disregard this.

      To dismiss information out of hand just because it came from the internet

      It's nothing to do with the media, and everything to do with the method of review. There's lots of excellent and reliable information which happens to be available on the Internet.

      is just as ridiculous as accepting the testimony of any expert at face value.

      Well, when you're ill you see a doctor rather than a car mechanic. You might still investigate what the doctor tells you but can you understand why you choose the doctor?

    11. Re:so... by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      a recursive transformation that can be applied as many times as necessary

      640 o’s should be enough for anybody.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    12. Re:so... by vague+disclaimer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of them

      Whoooooooosh!

    13. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The whole idea smacks of academic elitism. I edit Wikipedia articles on a few different subjects and I can say without equivocation that my knowledge of those subjects is second to none. Granted, none of them is going to change the world but they are topics of interest to me and I have a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of them

      That's fine as long as you can back up those edits with citations of (your) publications. Wikipedia itself has stated that it values accountability over accuracy, partly because they do not wish to become a publishing tool for self-proclaimed experts.

      It's no different than "Oh. HE says that. Well you know how unreliable he is.", without any proof of the incorrectness of the statement, it gets completely disregarded.

      You might want to read WP:V. Reading only the first sentence should suffice. Or, if you want more depth, read the first two sentences.

      And yes, Wikipedia itself has also been accused of elitism in the past. This is kind of circular, because the accusations are generally by those who do not understand the difference between a reference and a source, which is itself an academic distinction.

    14. Re:so... by fredmosby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't matter which was right...

      I thought the reason we had judges and juries was so that a non-biased third party could listen to the arguments from both sides and decide which one is right.

    15. Re:so... by fey000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Who is your expert witness?" "Fey000, he had Score:5, Insightful!"

    16. Re:so... by cgenman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The language seems a little strange, but the article implies that they were using the DSM-IV as quoted in Wikipedia as a source.

      The DSM, for those who don't know, is basically the official manual of mental problems. Every clinician should have one. Here's the Wikipedia article on it. The DSM is exactly where you should go to prove mental problems, as that is unimpeachably A if not The source.

      Not going directly to the DSM, but rather citing a wikipedia article about what the DSM says, is just sloppy. It would be like a judge citing a law by citing the wikipedia article about a law. Why not just go straight to the obvious and ubiquitous source is beyond me.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
  2. Ha by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your statement is completely true, but the smilie face at the end makes me feel as though you posted it as a joke, or feeling smug, by perhaps implying that following your solution would "cheat" the would-be checkers into believing the otherwise "unreliable" wikipedia information would suddenly become "reliable" by citing it's source instead of the article itself.

      In fact, the above statement is exactly how things are supposed to be, no joking or smugness. Wikipedia in and of itself is NOT a realiable source, does NOT try to be a reliable source, does NOT pretend to be a reliable source, and does NOT want anyone assuming it is a reliable source. It's the sources it cites which, depending on the circumstances, MAY constitute a reliable source. This is why any researches is supposed to do EXACTLY what you described, and it is not cheating or circumventing, but the actual legitimate way to do research when using Wikipedia.

    2. Re:Ha by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wikipedia is not a primary source. No encyclopedia is. "Reliability" is not the issue. You never cite what A said that B said when you can directly cite what B said. Best evidence rule.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  3. Wikipedia is useful... by digitalunity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Wikipedia is useful... by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It could probably reasonably be cited, with support from other sources, for non-contentious info.

      However... to use an under-construction Wiki-based encyclopedia to try to impeach an expert is insane.

      Wikipedia is not an authority. If the expert is really an expert on the subject, then what they say is more likely to be correct than what Wikipedia says, because they are an expert in the subject they discuss.

      And not only is Wikipedia not created by experts... Wikipedia derides expertise, and scorns authority. It also sometimes includes blatantly false, crackpot info, sometimes even vandalism.

      Due to the wide range of people who edit it.

      Errors will eventually be corrected; however, it's not like a court can reverse its verdict next week because someone corrected the cited WP article.

      Not until courts reach the point where the opposition can look at the Wikipedia article, edit it to their liking, and have the witness "citation" automatically changed and taken into account, before trial ends.

      In that case, there could be a fun edit war between prosecutor and defendant over the definitions of certain things.

      If you change the definition of legal terms on WP, do courts automatically change their rules to match? :)

  4. This would be a correct ruling... by barfy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This would be a correct ruling... by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other words, a prosecutor should know that in court, if you need to cite the DSM-IV, you need to cite the DSM-IV, not a Wikipedia article citing the DSM-IV. I mean, it's not like somebody's life (or at least a significant portion of their future) is on the line or anything in a criminal trial.

      You probably also need an appropriate expert witness to explain why the diagnosis in question would apply to the behavior in question.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. Re:Stupid... by pspahn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, if you can't credibly use wikipedia to cite a well-known medical book such as the DSM-IV-TR, then what can you cite with wikipedia?

    I know, I know, it's wikipedia, and you shouldn't be citing it, but c'mon! I know that politically motivated wiki pages shouldn't be cited because of bias, but what about stuff that is standard knowledge? If I cited wikipedia as my source for stating that copper's atomic number is 29, why is my source not credible?

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  6. Re:Stupid... by wjousts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I cited wikipedia as my source for stating that copper's atomic number is 29, why is my source not credible?

    You shouldn't need to cite that, it's common knowledge. It's in any elementary chemistry text book.

    You don't cite Wikipedia because it's not a primary source. Wikipedia doesn't generate any new knowledge (note WP:NOR) so everything in Wikipedia comes from somewhere else. You should, therefore, quote the somewhere it came from.

  7. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  8. Intent to avoid "authority" by cdrguru · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:I don't get it. by HikingStick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Had they cited a reputable scientific journal that referenced the DSM-IV, there would have been less chance of the reference being disregarded. The use of Wikipedia as an intermediate source, rather than citing the DSM-IV directly, is akin to bringing an untrustworthy witness to the witness stand--nothing said is likely to be believed, even if true. The Wikipedia reference could have been accurate, but it would have been the same as if the prosecutor quoted one of my kids, if that child were able to define the term and cite the DSM-IV.

    Even if they found the information they wanted via Wikipedia, they should have gone back and verified it in the original source, and then cited the source. Prosecutorial laziness is the real reason why the citation was not acceptable.

    --
    I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  10. Erm..no. Just no. How'd this get on Slashdot? by Zephiris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  11. Who says Wikipedia was cited? by elistan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Summary not so clear by the_bard17 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IANAL, but I'd imagine that the court/judge doesn't want to "waste" its time by having to follow the citation chain... it'd rather have the lawyer in question do the footwork, trace the citations back, and quote the DSM properly.

    I'd see it as more of a "Don't waste my time" and a "I don't want to have to work harder because you want to cut corners" action by a judge than a straight "You're wrong" action.

  13. Re:Summary not so clear by falsified · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Others have said things to the effect of "the judge didn't want/is too busy to look through citations", but it's actually more than that. It would be flat-out inappropriate for the judge to do so because he/she would essentially be making the case for the litigant.

    It's the responsibility of the lawyer to come prepared. This one wasn't.

    --
    HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.