I didn't realize it until just now, but we (En-WP) have articles about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_judicial_opinions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_court_source
These clearly need to be updated, but might be of interest.
Also of note, albeit also outdated:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1272437
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html
And the best post I've found on the current case:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/16/citing-wikipedia-in-court-opinions/
Regards,
Newyorkbrad
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Mark <delirium(a)hackish.org> 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<ht…
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
______________________________**_________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<https://lists.wi…