Omar’s Liberal Views on Wikipedia
Apparently it’s a label that is not limited to politics alone.
Mitch Kowalski of the Legal Post picked up on an article about a New Jersey decision that excluded a Wikipedia entry as evidence.
Wikipedia not reliable, says court in earth shattering decision
It’s bad enough that there are judges who don’t know the law on issues brought before them, but this story from Law.com describes a judge with the research mentality of a 6 year-old. In New Jersey, a judge – sadly unaware that Wikipedia entries can be changed by anyone at any time – ruled that the plaintiff could rely upon a Wikipedia entry “to help trace ownership of a credit-card debt” for the purpose of estabilishing a right to sue.
No surprisingly, the decision was overturned on appeal.
Omar Ha-Redeye also comments on the case, but takes a more liberal view on the use of Wikipedia in court. Contrary to Omar, my view is that until Wikipedia entries are vetted, approved and made unchangeable by recognized experts in those areas, it can never been seen as anything more than a novel source for off-the-cuff information that may help point you in the direction of further research. To put it more bluntly, relying on a Wikipedia entry is like relying upon an essay by an unnamed author that you found in the park. Or, citing a conversation with your Aunt Mildred as a reliable source for the history of streetcars in Singapore.
