[WikiEN-l] on citing Wikipedia in U.S. court opinions

[Fred Bauder]

>> Making the blog-rounds, there was a Utah court case that includes
>> surprisingly lengthy (and generally positive) discussion on whether and
>> when to cite Wikipedia in court decisions:
>>
>> * http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/fire_insurance081612.pdf
>>
>> See footnote 1 (page 5) in the majority opinion, and a separate
>> concurring opinion filed by another judge solely on the
>> Wikipedia-citation question (starts on the bottom of page 7). My
>> favorite part is where they cite the Wikipedia article "Reliability of
>> Wikipedia" as part of the analysis.
>>
>> Embarrassingly, the article of ours they cite, [[Jet Ski]], is actually
>> in a sort of sorry state. But they seem to do so only for the
>> relatively
>> mundane usage note in the opening paragraph, which explains that "Jet
>> Ski" is a trademark, but is often used imprecisely, in colloquial
>> usage,
>> to refer to other similar devices not manufactured by Kawasaki. I guess
>> the OED doesn't have a note on that yet? Or maybe they don't have OED
>> subscriptions over at the court? Alternately, maybe they just liked the
>> way we worded the explanation and wanted to quote it rather than
>> re-explaining the same thing in their own words.
>>
>> -Mark
>
> I think this is probably a case of the court being candid about where
> they got their information. They can't use their personal knowledge even
> for such instances of judicial notice, which is what this is in essence.
>
> There is a lot of getting information by newspaper reporters, students,
> anyone really who needs it which is not cited due to the supposed total
> unreliability of Wikipedia regarding even the simplest facts.
>
> Fred

In the court's opinion judicial notice was not taken, but information
obtained about common usage of the term, "jet ski," used in the insurance
contract. Judicial notice seems to be out of bounds under some reasoning;
doubtless I do not fully understand what it means as a legal term.

Fred