[WikiEN-l] on citing Wikipedia in U.S. court opinions

[Fred Bauder]

> In the concurring opinion, Judge Voros says that "getting a sense of
> the common usage or ordinary and plain meaning of a contract term is
> precisely the purpose for which the lead opinion here cites Wikipedia.
>  Our reliance on this source is therefore, in my judgment,
> appropriate."
>
> On this, he is grossly mistaken.  A Wikipedia entry may reflect the
> common usage.  Most of the time, for most entries, it probably does.
> On the other hand, it may not.  And an appeals court judge shouldn't
> be digging through the edit history to figure out which one it is.
> This type of analysis should, if at all, be done by an expert witness,
> who could be cross examined by the opposing counsel.
>
> As it stands, all the Wikipedia entry showed was that at one point one
> person wrote what happened to appear there at the time when it was
> accessed.

Sometimes we have some strange name from British English or whatever that
someone thinks is the "correct" name, totally divorced from popular
usage.

Fred