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.'"

6 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps untrue in this case but not a bad policy by Borealis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  2. I work at an international litigation consulting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... 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...

  3. Re:Confused by TouchAndGo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, the wording is confusing.

    "In her brief, the ex-wife 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.”"

    It makes it sound as though the DSM only exists in the fairytale land of Wikipedia. Unless he SAID "from this article about the DSM on wikipedia", in which case he's just a dumbass

  4. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    Exactly. It is also important to actually read the original source for yourself. It's been known to happen that some Wikipedia editor cites a source and then completely makes up what it says. It can take a long time for someone to notice this, if ever.

    In this example someone eventually did notice, after several years of tendencious unsupportable "facts" being "backed up by citations" in the article.

  5. Re:so... by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

      Almost certainly and generally - very nice weasel words that hide stark reality, which is that you can't tell which articles were written by experts and which were written by 'experts'.
     
    And that's generally my problem with Wikipedia. Folks like you say "this group is generally written by experts" or "that group is usually written by experts", and imply that those articles are thus extremely trustworthy. But it never, ever, occurs to you to ask why in hell isn't the entire Wikipedia written by experts then?". Reviewing articles in fields that I am expert on, I routinely see errors of fact, of omission, of inference... How then am I supposed to trust the balance?
     
    Using the cited sources isn't much help - because if an article is flawed as outlined above, how are the sources going to be any better? GIGO.

  6. Re:so... by sco08y · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Otherwise were does it end?

    You cite wikipedia, and seeing that you cited wikipedia, a few blogs mention it without citing anyone. Then some small newspapers quote them as "experts say", and finally it lands in a reputable newspaper, and then journals cite the newspapers, until a good journal cites the journals. And wikipedia finally cites the journal.

    It ends with consensus!