[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR (Ray Saintonge)

[Sam Blacketer]

>
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <46004E87.5050306 at telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Angela wrote:
> >On 3/20/07, Guettarda <guettarda at 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.

-- 
Sam Blacketer
London E15