Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity: Wikipedia and reliable sources of information continue to define each other
On July 18 the New York Post reported on an "utterly incompetent" lawyer who was accused of using Wikipedia to defend her client, TaiChin Preyor. Preyor was arrested for the fatal stabbing of Jami Tackett during a drug-related robbery in 2004. Preyor's new lawyers claimed that "It appears she relied on Wikipedia, of all things, to learn the complex in and outs of Texas capital punishment." The lawyer had, among other things, the Wikipedia article titled "Capital punishment in Texas" printed out and labeled "research". Preyor was executed on July 27.
.jpg)
On July 26, Estonian Public Broadcasting reported that the Supreme Court of Estonia decided that checking the Wikipedia article Mil Mi-28 is an inadequate method for determining whether to levy a tariff for civilian versus combat helicopter parts. The story began in 2015, when parts for Russian helicopters arrived at Muuga Harbor in Estonia from Dubai. The company shipping them claimed that they were parts for civilian helicopters; however, it was eventually discovered that they were intended for combat helicopters. In response to the sale, Europe's Tax and Customs board fined the company 1,600 euros, citing a Wikipedia page. The company promptly sued, and the Supreme Court eventually found that Wikipedia was not a sufficiently credible source to justify an order of punishment.
These are just the most recent developments in a long history of lawyers and courts using Wikipedia as a source. The Signpost covered the beginning of this trend in a UK court case in 2006, and further cases in 2007. The latter was prompted by a New York Times article that year by Noam Cohen, a frequent contributor to its Wikipedia-related stories. At the time, Cohen reported that more than 100 American court cases had cited Wikipedia, including 13 from the federal appeals courts (as distinct from American state appeals courts, within each of the states). Why did the judiciary choose to cite Wikipedia? Cohen quoted Stephen Gillers of the New York University Law School as saying that the most critical factor is public acceptance, including acceptance by the litigants: "A judge should not use Wikipedia when the public is not prepared to accept it as authority." In March of 2017, Eugene Volokh wrote an opinion piece concerning the Texas Supreme Court using Wikipedia to define what 'Welfare queen' meant. Perhaps by Gillers' criteria this indicates public/Wikipedia alignment on the understanding of this term. Every circuit court in the United States has used Wikipedia as a source for general knowledge and/or slang terms.
The proliferation of Wikipedia as a source has drawn criticism from some, such as Cass Sunstein and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. However, others such as Judge Richard Posner maintain that "Wikipedia is a terrific resource … because it [is] so convenient, it often has been updated recently and is very accurate." However, Judge Posner also noted that it "wouldn’t be right to use it in a critical issue". Other scholars agree that Wikipedia is most appropriate for "soft facts", when courts want to provide context to help make their opinions more readable. Many agree that "Selectively using Wikipedia for … minor points in an opinion is an economical use of judges' and law clerks' time."
While it remains difficult to identify lawyers who admit to using Wikipedia, paradoxically, it has become common for lawyers to claim that their lesser esteemed colleagues and rivals get all their information from Wikipedia.
The Governor of Jakarta, Anies Baswedan envisions "collaborating with citizens to tackle social issues" the Nikkei Asian Review reported on July 27. He has compared his approach with that of Wikipedia, saying "[The] movement approach is Wikipedia. They provided the platform and allowed everyone to participate, fill in the entry, provided the information – and it has created a very rich information [source], Today, we are entering a 21st century in which the citizens of a city, with its connectivity, are able to interact among themselves. And between those people and the government, those interactions can translate into cooperation for the betterment of a community, of a society, of a nation."
Discuss this story
Court cases built on Wikipedia articles
Thanks to the journalists for producing this piece. This piece shows the substantial epistemologic hypocrisy and simpleton-ism that often surround applications of Wikipedia content even among some people who hold professional degrees (and thus are supposed to know better). What some of these lawyers and commentators are actually showing, beneath their emperor's-new-suit-style front of fabricated moral outrage, is that "to 'win the game', one is supposed to use Wikipedia to get clues and circumspection but then also deny that one did so, and leave no publicly/easily available evidence or paper trail showing that one did so. But I'll tell you, or imply, not to look at Wikipedia at all because it's unmitigated garbage. Thus, do as I say, not as I do." The plain fact about how to apply Wikipedia properly is that you use it to gain orientation on a topic but then you also go read reliable sources, including usually the very same reliable references cited by Wikipedia itself, before you base any critical decision on the Wikipedia content. This mode of use is not as different from that of a library reference desk as the fake moral outrage would imply. When one criticizes the defense lawyer who read about Texas capital punishment on Wikipedia, for example, the correct lesson is not that "she should have avoided even looking at Wikipedia"—the correct lesson is simply that "she should have also read multiple reliable sources after reading Wikipedia, and not allowed anyone to find any printouts of Wikipedia in her briefcase." People's hypocrisy about Wikipedia is tiring, especially because that same snarky asshole who acts like he knows better about the epistemologic approach to using (or avoiding) Wikipedia will casually read the Google answer box, which often cites no references at all and makes no attempt to show how or where it got its information, all day long. And, once again, what really matters to him is just to pretend that he didn't—to appear not to have done so, or leave no clear evidence of having done so. But of course, the simpleton-ism comes from all sides, because the lawyers and judges who cite Wikipedia in briefs and decisions (the ones that the snarky hypocrites attack) should have had enough sense to cite the reliable sources that they found via Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia article itself, just as they would cite the reliable sources that they found via the reference librarian, not the reference librarian herself/himself. For example, with the helicopter dual-use technology import/export issue, many or most Wikipedia articles on aircraft cite Jane's reference works—including the article on the Mil Mi-28. Among the laziness, ignorance, childishness, and hypocrisy in how people treat the epistemology of online content, I'm not sure which of the four is most inexcusable. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of sources...