Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com writes:
Keitei nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html?_r=1&ref=b...
Wikipedia, the unreliable source for students, journalists, and US courts.
A little deceptive subject as compared to the article. One might say lacking NPOV. The only citations holding up seem to be for defining things like beverage and booty music.
January 29, 2007 Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively By NOAM COHEN
"The reaction from the court above her, the United States Court of Federal Claims, was direct: the materials ?culled from the Internet do not ? at least on their face ? meet? standards of reliability."
?Wikipedia is a terrific resource,? said Judge Richard A. Posner ... But, he added: ?It wouldn?t be right to use it in a critical issue.?
"... currently a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. ?I love Wikipedia, but I don?t think it is yet time to cite it in judicial decisions,? he said, adding that ?it doesn?t have quality control?"
"... Wikipedia is best used for ?soft facts? that are not central to the reasoning of a decision."
~~Pro-Lick
That's not even the most annoying part. There's still the misconception that Wikipedia is not stable enough: ,---- | In a recent letter to The New York Law Journal, Kenneth H. Ryesky, a tax | lawyer who teaches at Queens College and Yeshiva University, took | exception to the practice, writing that "citation of an inherently | unstable source such as Wikipedia can undermine the foundation not only | of the judicial opinion in which Wikipedia is cited, but of the future | briefs and judicial opinions which in turn use that judicial opinion as | authority". `----
Oy! As if we didn't have a nice system to link to specific revisions - which is more than most websites can claim - and don't mention it *all the time*.