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

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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…

(Caution: the facts of the case are unpleasant.)

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.