Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com> writes:
Keitei <nihthraefn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html?_r=1&ref=…
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*.
--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.