See Wikipedia?
Threat Level reports on an Eighth Circuit decision that should give any lawyer pause when citing to Wikipedia for a factual proposition. Access the decision here [pdf].
The money line from the court's order, quoting from an article:
Nevertheless, all courts obviously do not adhere so strictly to this rule. My quick all states/feds search for "see wikipedia" turned up 36 results. I would guess many of the decisions cite wikipedia for basic uncontested facts or definitions (more out of laziness and for lack of a better cite than anything) - unlike in the above case, the cite in the majority of cases was probably irrelevant to the decision.
Nevertheless, it's something to keep in mind. It's probably worth avoiding wikipedia as a factual reference point.
The money line from the court's order, quoting from an article:
Since when did a Web site that any Internet surfer can edit become an authoritative source by which law students could write passing papers, experts could provide credible testimony, lawyers could craft legal arguments, and judges could issue precedents.
Nevertheless, all courts obviously do not adhere so strictly to this rule. My quick all states/feds search for "see wikipedia" turned up 36 results. I would guess many of the decisions cite wikipedia for basic uncontested facts or definitions (more out of laziness and for lack of a better cite than anything) - unlike in the above case, the cite in the majority of cases was probably irrelevant to the decision.
Nevertheless, it's something to keep in mind. It's probably worth avoiding wikipedia as a factual reference point.
Comments