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

[Newyorkbrad]

I've collected a few of these over the years, in preparation for an article
I've never found the time to write ... here's another example from earlier
this year where the majority and dissenting opinions differ over
the propriety of a Wikipedia citaiton:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02069.htm

Wikipedia is cited in footnote 3 to dissenting opinion (see the very end of
the decision).  The majority opinion responds that "as of yet, Wikipedia is
not recognized source material for serious jurisprudential analysis."
(Caution: the facts of the case are unpleasant.)
Newyorkbrad




On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>wrote:

> >> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>