Generally, court decisions cite Wikipedia only for uncontroversial
facts where it isn't really worth the trouble to locate a more
traditional or "reliable" source. What makes this case unusual is
that the judge who was citing Wikipedia didn't seek another source
even after the majority challenged him -- probably because the
citation and the cited fact were relatively peripheral to the opinion.
Newyorkbrad
On 3/20/12, Techman224 <techman224(a)techman224.com> wrote:
Probably didn't read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer
Techman224
On 2012-03-20, at 6:28 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02069.htm
Wikipedia is cited in footnote 3 to dissenting opinion (see the very
end of the decision). The majority opinion responds that "as of yet,
Wikipedia is not recognized source material for serious
jurisprudential analysis."
(Caution: the facts of the case are unpleasant.)
Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l