Citing to Wikipedia in Judicial Opinions?
Oct 22
posted by Catherine Dunn in
Technology News, Research
As noted in the Law Librarian Blog earlier this week, Lee Peoples has posted an abstract of a new working paper entitled The Citation of Wikipedia in American Judicial Opinions (SSRN). According to the abstract, the paper is based upon the finding that Wikipedia has been cited almost 300 times in American judicial opinions as of September 2008, and the citations are not limited to mundane references to everyday facts.
Wow. That's pretty scary.
According to the abstract, the article will explore the impact of citations to Wikipedia in judicial opinions on the law of evidence, judicial ethics, the judicial role in the common law adversarial system, the de-legalization of American law, and the future of stare decisis.
#1 by Ryan Warren on 10/30/08 - 12:46 PM
The comparative validity of Wikipedia and Britanica Online (3.86:2.92 mistakes per article) is impressive, according to a well-know blind study published by (the reputable) Nature (Jim Giles, Internet encyclopaedias go head to head, Nature, Dec. 15, 2005). In addition, Wikipedia offers the ability to have much more dynamic and current information. While errors may exist at any given moment, the robust civic participation in Wikipedia will act as a corrective -- unlike traditional publishing.
I think it may be threatening in that it presents a huge shift from the powerful means of information production and dissemination that rose to dominate the 20th century due to the technologies of television and radio. It is Truth as we find it in the 21st century -- fluid, dynamic and of the people. In it's scope, it can give archival meaning and inter-subjective truth-value to phenomena insufficient for the stamp of validity given by establishment media and publishing (in that it is unmarketable -- local bands, charity events, small non-profits, etc). It is the common law mechanism of the internet age, Hegelian progress writ large, imperfectly refining itself in a struggle of dialog.
Bombast aside, the article looks neat. I'll check it out.