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.'"

64 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 mcgrew · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't matter which was right, what matters is you don't use an encyclopedia, any encyclopedia as a source to cite. If you try to cite wikipedia (or Britannica) in a college class, you'll flunk your paper.

      I don't see how anybody who's ever been to college (including someone like me who was in college long before the internet existed) could be ignorant of this. 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.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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!

    5. Re:so... by mlts · · Score: 4, Informative

      I tell people to don't bother citing the Wikipedia article, but go to the sources listed in the article, read those and the citations those articles have, then go from there, or even check those articles and their references out as well. At least with 1-2 layers of articles gleaned from citations, that might be enough for most references.

      Caveat: A lot of papers require peer reviewed academic journal citations, so this does not replace going to the library and digging through for relevant academic items.

    6. Re:so... by multisync · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you would loose that bet.

      Well then he'd better be careful. I certainly wouldn't want any bets to get loose!

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    7. 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

    8. 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?
    9. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yes, the method is called Cite this page and the link is on the left side of the article. Most people are not aware of this. It even shows the obvious disclaimer:

      IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information—citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research.

      As with any community-built reference, there is a possibility for error in Wikipedia's content—please check your facts against multiple sources and read our disclaimers for more information.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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 ?
    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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?

    16. Re:so... by cdrguru · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suggest a new standard:

      Std. English "lose" : New Slashdotese: "loose"

      Std. English "loose" : New Slashdotese: "looose"

      This is obviously a recursive transformation that can be applied as many times as necessary to effectively lose the reader in the dust. Or should that be loose. Or maybe loooooooooose.

    17. 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.
    18. Re:so... by vague+disclaimer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of them

      Whoooooooosh!

    19. 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.

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

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

    21. 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.

    22. Re:so... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It doesn't matter which was right, what matters is you don't use an encyclopedia, any encyclopedia as a source to cite

      This, to me, seems arbitrary and stupid. I realize that we prefer original knowledge in our sources, but there are many, many areas of study where such a thing simply does not exist. If I were writing a paper on the Battle of the Little Bighorn, for example, I'd be hard pressed to find anyone alive that would be eligible as an 'expert witness' to that event. Any hope of original research died with the last survivor - quite a while ago.

      And if you're not aware, the official account is all kinds of messed up, and even the Natives had dissenting versions of what actually happened. Various parties had a hand in screwing with the forensics of it, and much of the actual property remained privately owned after the battle. The actual events of the it will likely never, ever be discerned.

      Back to the point, who's to say one hearsay source is any better or worse than the other? This is but a single example...

      I think the more reasonable position, still valid in this situation, would be:

      ...you should never use an encyclopedia, any encyclopedia when there is a better source to cite

    23. 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
    24. Re:so... by yekim · · Score: 5, Funny

      If I add the comment "I guess this was a self-fulfilling prophesy, so to speak?", will I get "Score:5, Funny"?

    25. 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!

  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 Digicrat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, but citing the source generally means you go out and read the source to base your claim on, or at least to verify that the summary is valid. The GP (based on the smiley), is speaking about cheating the system by citing the wikipedia source, without taking that extra step to actually verify for himself that the source validates the article (which isn't always the case on wikipedia, though they try).

    3. 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? :)

    2. Re:Wikipedia is useful... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "crowdsourced knowledge, which is likely"

      Why? Unless the people making up the "crowd" are experts in the area the entry is discussing, the entry is not valid.

      The moron is the person who believes wiki-pedia is valid.

    3. Re:Wikipedia is useful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      I wouldn't be so sure about that. There's at least one page I know of that was edited with incorrect information (someone trying to prove a point) about three years ago that still has that incorrect information on it. It's not an important article, but assuming that Wikipedia is somehow "self correcting" is making exactly the same mistake as people who rely on Wikipedia being "correct" and/or "authoratiative"--Wikipedia is often factually wrong.

    4. Re:Wikipedia is useful... by digitalunity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wiki entries take a lot of work to create. My experience in reading entries that I am personally an expert in leads me to believe that in many cases the wiki entries are in fact written by experts or pseudo-experts. The abuse seems to occur on topics that encourage more bias, such as topics about specific laws, corporations, products or people.

      Entries on hard sciences seem to garner a lot less abuse, probably because the errors would be so much easier to spot. For instance, Lindsay Lohan's wiki entry is frequently edited and those edits are often reversed for lack of citations.

      Is her wiki entry accurate? Probably only as accurate as reports from AP, which is to say it is only as accurate as her publicist(or the courts lol) deems willing to share.

      In contrast, the edits on the topic "Numerical Control" are rarely reversed and occur somewhat less frequently. That wiki entry is quite accurate.

      So I don't think you have to be a moron to accept what Wikipedia says. But you do need a discerning mind and a willingness to fact check citations.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
  4. 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.
  5. 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/
    2. Re:This would be a correct ruling... by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's even simpler than that, Wikipedia is the site that anyone can edit. That means that it's entirely possible for the prosecutor to log into Wikipedia, change an article so that it supports his arguments, add fakes cites out to hard to verify material, then take his research from there. Why any educated lawyer would think that you could use Wikipedia for anything more than the most basic of a starting point for research is beyond me.

  6. Please post on slashdot in the form of a meme :) by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 5, Funny

    The judge proclaimed "[citation needed]"

  7. Re:If it was printed? by Improv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If that print edition is vetted by experts, yes. Otherwise no. Citing an encyclopedia is a bad idea. Citing a project like Wikipedia that isn't exactly an encyclopedia is worse. Wikipedia is great for a lot of things and the articles that get enough eyes usually coalesce into something that's reasonably reliable, but it's not as good as traditional research and education.

    See this for a bit of humour on the topic:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  8. 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...

  9. 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.
  10. Re:It's in your courts, it's in your schools by Helios1182 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most academics love Wikipedia because it provides an easy introduction to topics, and includes references to original source materials. That doesn't mean you can cite Wikipedia in a paper; just like you can't cite any other encyclopedia.

  11. 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

  12. Re:If it was printed? by mpoulton · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, a print edition would not be better. In order to use evidence to impeach an expert, the evidence must be recognized as more reliable than the expert's own opinion. The only ways to demonstrate this are to have the court independently recognize the inherent authority of the source ("judicial notice", uncommon in this context), or for the expert himself to acknowledge the validity of the source, or to convince the court that your source is more reliable than the expert. No encyclopedia would ever meet these standards. Ever. To even consider that it might is ridiculous.

    --
    I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
  13. Re:Why even appeal a marriage annulment? by mrsurb · · Score: 4, Informative

    An annulment is not a divorce. A divorce is the dissolution of a marriage, an annulment is a declaration that the marriage was invalid. This has all sorts of legal consequences. From TFA, "In annulment cases, the OSG enters an appearance in court to ensure there is no collusion between husband and wife when they seek to annul their union or to see to it that the nullification of a marriage is based on valid grounds."

  14. 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.

  15. 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?

  16. Why challenge Wikipedia? by mandark1967 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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
  17. Wikipedia has versioning. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 2, Informative

    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).

  18. 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.

  19. Re:Perhaps untrue in this case but not a bad polic by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd be more inclined to beat the prosecutor with a wet noodle

    You Italians sure have weird and delicious forms of punishment.

  20. Re:Why even appeal a marriage annulment? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It might be advantageous to BOTH of them to declare the marriage invalid as opposed to a divorce. I'm not sure what circumstances might cause this, I imagine there might be some crazy loophole in tax laws, or if they're abusing marriage to get people overseas a visa or something like that.

  21. 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...
  22. 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
    1. Re:Erm..no. Just no. How'd this get on Slashdot? by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Where the hell is THEIR original citation?

      Professional journalists don't bother with such things. And remember, they are experts in their field, so you should trust them. Unlike Wikipedia, newspapers are authorities.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  23. Re:Why even appeal a marriage annulment? by boxwood · · Score: 2, Informative

    the cricumstance that caused this is the fact that divorce is illegal in the philippines. So you either get an anulment or stay married.

  24. 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.

  25. Summary not so clear by spun · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. 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.

    2. Re:Summary not so clear by Galvatron · · Score: 4, Informative

      The court is dumb by design. We (common law countries) have an adversarial system, wherein it is up to the prosecution and the defense to do all the legwork of proving their cases. If a source is unreliable, it gets thrown out, and it's the fault of the prosecution for not doing the work of following the citation chain themselves to cite the correct source.

      In a civil law countries (most non-English-speaking countries), the situation may be different.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    3. Re:Summary not so clear by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...the prosecutors made reference to the DSM.

      Diving Spaghetti Monster? What powers can he _not_ obtain?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    4. 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.