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
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:
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
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:
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
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@fairpoint.netwrote:
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:
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
----- Original Message ----- From: "Newyorkbrad" newyorkbrad@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 4:54 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] on citing Wikipedia in U.S. court opinions
(Caution: the facts of the case are unpleasant.)
"Unpleasant" is relative. But then, I've practised law in Liverpool.
He didn't cut his girlfriend's fingers off with bolt-cutters, for example.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
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.
http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/ure/0201.htm
Wikipedia is certainly not a source "whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned".
And if the fact "is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction", then Wikipedia isn't necessary.
In the concurring opinion, Judge Voros says that "getting a sense of the common usage or ordinary and plain meaning of a contract term is precisely the purpose for which the lead opinion here cites Wikipedia. Our reliance on this source is therefore, in my judgment, appropriate."
On this, he is grossly mistaken. A Wikipedia entry may reflect the common usage. Most of the time, for most entries, it probably does. On the other hand, it may not. And an appeals court judge shouldn't be digging through the edit history to figure out which one it is. This type of analysis should, if at all, be done by an expert witness, who could be cross examined by the opposing counsel.
As it stands, all the Wikipedia entry showed was that at one point one person wrote what happened to appear there at the time when it was accessed.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Mark delirium@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:
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
In the concurring opinion, Judge Voros says that "getting a sense of the common usage or ordinary and plain meaning of a contract term is precisely the purpose for which the lead opinion here cites Wikipedia. Our reliance on this source is therefore, in my judgment, appropriate."
On this, he is grossly mistaken. A Wikipedia entry may reflect the common usage. Most of the time, for most entries, it probably does. On the other hand, it may not. And an appeals court judge shouldn't be digging through the edit history to figure out which one it is. This type of analysis should, if at all, be done by an expert witness, who could be cross examined by the opposing counsel.
As it stands, all the Wikipedia entry showed was that at one point one person wrote what happened to appear there at the time when it was accessed.
Sometimes we have some strange name from British English or whatever that someone thinks is the "correct" name, totally divorced from popular usage.
Fred
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@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.pdfhttp://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
______________________________**_________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
And the best post I've found on the current case:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/16/citing-wikipedia-in-court-opinions/
Am I missing something? That's just a cut and paste of the concurring opinion and a paragraph of the ruling.