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.'"

40 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 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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 ?
    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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?

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. Re:so... by fey000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    16. 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.

    17. 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
    18. 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"?

    19. 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. 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. 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. 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...

  8. 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

  9. 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.
  10. 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."

  11. 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.

  12. 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?

  13. 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 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.