[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
On May 19, 2006, at 1:41 AM, Peter Mackay wrote:
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
> On May 18, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:
>> Mmmm, but you'd have to be a right nong to use it as more than a
>> casual reference. A legal encyclopaedia that anyone can edit?
> That's just our development pattern. In the end we will
that are verified accurate.
And therefore obsolete. Law, both legislation and common
There's no reason stable versions couldn't be vetted weekly or
biweekly. Law still does not change as quickly as technology.
You could have an encyclopaedia of legal basics,
but having an
comprehensive legal reference using volunteer labour is probably a
very big ask.
Having an up-to-date comprehensive encyclopedia using
volunteer labor is a very big task :)
No argument there, and Wikipedia is a stunning achievement by anybody's
standards. However I was thinking that the sort of people who are capable of
ensuring that legal articles are accurate, uptodate and dependent are
usually busy and highly paid. Asking senior lawyers to work on a legalopedia
in their time off is a step up from asking Star Trek fans to compile lists
Compiling useful legal articles and then keeping them up to date isn't
something your average editor can do. How do we check credentials, for