Delirium wrote:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
In an opinion (which I'm having a lot of fun reading) by a three-judge panel of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit]] striking down the use of mass metal-detector searches at protests, Judge Tjoflat referenced [[Homeland Security Advisory System]].
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf
From page 16:
"Although the threat level was 'elevated' at the time of the protest, '[t]o date, the threat level has stood at yellow (elevated) for the majority of its time in existence. It has been raised to orange (high) six times.' Wikipedia, Homeland Security Advisory System, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security_Advisory_System
(last referenced Aug. 16, 2004)."
Wow. *That* seems pretty irresponsible on their part. We're no authority on the homeland security advisory system, and there's no guarantee that our statement there is true, and I notice our statement isn't sourced. They ought to have cited some primary sources if they're going to be basing a legal opinion on this.
Really it's not that much more irresponsible than an appellate court engaging in fact-finding in the first place, which in the US system at least is theoretically the job of the trial court. Anyway, I suspect the reason they used Wikipedia is not so much because we're the definitive source, but simply that we provide the handiest summary of the points the court wanted to mention, and we're reliable _enough_. In other words, just the sort of thing people turn to encyclopedias for.
--Michael Snow
--- Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Really it's not that much more irresponsible than an appellate court engaging in fact-finding in the first place, which in the US system at least is theoretically the job of the trial court. Anyway, I suspect the reason they used Wikipedia is not so much because we're the definitive source, but simply that we provide the handiest summary of the points the court wanted to mention, and we're reliable _enough_. In other words, just the sort of thing people turn to encyclopedias for.
An added bonus is that the citing judge could tweak the Wikipedia entry prior to publishing his opinion so that the material more closely supports the logic of his decision. ;)
-- mav
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Really it's not that much more irresponsible than an appellate court engaging in fact-finding in the first place, which in the US system at least is theoretically the job of the trial court. Anyway, I suspect the reason they used Wikipedia is not so much because we're the definitive source, but simply that we provide the handiest summary of the points the court wanted to mention, and we're reliable _enough_. In other words, just the sort of thing people turn to encyclopedias for.
An added bonus is that the citing judge could tweak the Wikipedia entry prior to publishing his opinion so that the material more closely supports the logic of his decision. ;)
Even better, if people revert, the judge could find them in contempt of court! Just think, real-life jail for edit warriors!
:-)
Stan