From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 46004E87.5050306@telus.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Angela wrote:
On 3/20/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
In a recent posting, Jimbo stated that anything that draws from primary sources is OR. The section is question was drawn in part from primary sources (San Diego courts case detail, a Superior court judgement).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons suggests that whether or not primary sources can be used depends on how public the figure is. For non-public figures, it says "material from primary sources should generally not be used," whereas for public figures it says "material from primary sources should be used with care" though that is under the heading "Presumption in favor of privacy".
Court judgements (and, for that matter, court filings by the disputants, and even trial transcripts) are a matter of public record. This is an important component to maintaining the transparency of the judicial system. Privacy should not be a factor with this kind of material.
I would have thought a court judgment is one of those rare sources that is part primary and part secondary: the opinions of the Judge are a primary source, and should if preferable be backed up by a legal textbook which analyses their implications, but the summary of the facts of the case is a secondary source in that it is the Judge's analysis of the primary sources presented to the court.