Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Really it's not that much more irresponsible than an appellate court engaging in fact-finding in the first place, which in the US system at least is theoretically the job of the trial court. Anyway, I suspect the reason they used Wikipedia is not so much because we're the definitive source, but simply that we provide the handiest summary of the points the court wanted to mention, and we're reliable _enough_. In other words, just the sort of thing people turn to encyclopedias for.
An added bonus is that the citing judge could tweak the Wikipedia entry prior to publishing his opinion so that the material more closely supports the logic of his decision. ;)
Even better, if people revert, the judge could find them in contempt of court! Just think, real-life jail for edit warriors!
:-)
Stan