Comments on: Wikipedia in the Courts http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/wikipedia_in_th.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:33:39 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Nbkvqqw http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/wikipedia_in_th.html/comment-page-1#comment-59403 Nbkvqqw Thu, 24 May 2007 04:07:14 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/04/wikipedia-in-the-courts.html#comment-59403 http://4.xxxsexygirl24h.info x http://4.xxxsexygirl24h.info x

]]> By: MR http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/wikipedia_in_th.html/comment-page-1#comment-59402 MR Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:30:22 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/04/wikipedia-in-the-courts.html#comment-59402 This is a great example of the need for the hearsay rule... This is a great example of the need for the hearsay rule…

]]> By: Frank http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/wikipedia_in_th.html/comment-page-1#comment-59401 Frank Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:14:58 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/04/wikipedia-in-the-courts.html#comment-59401 Great comment on the paradox of authority raised by Wikipedia, James. It really brings up all sorts of interesting epistemological questions. For example, what if a community decides simply to use wikipedia as a reference, trusting its own ability to recognize and repair "vandalized" pages? Would we, on some naive Peircean view of truth, commend such reliance? Or mgiht we just take a Darwinian view that eventually such a group will be "outcompeted" wby the "reality-based community"? I've been frustrated by students' reliance on Wikipedia for all manner of citations. On the other hand, I've often found that the wikipedia entry is better than anything else (easily findable) on the web for defining some technical topic. So I'm torn on question myself. Great comment on the paradox of authority raised by Wikipedia, James. It really brings up all sorts of interesting epistemological questions. For example, what if a community decides simply to use wikipedia as a reference, trusting its own ability to recognize and repair “vandalized” pages? Would we, on some naive Peircean view of truth, commend such reliance? Or mgiht we just take a Darwinian view that eventually such a group will be “outcompeted” wby the “reality-based community”?

I’ve been frustrated by students’ reliance on Wikipedia for all manner of citations. On the other hand, I’ve often found that the wikipedia entry is better than anything else (easily findable) on the web for defining some technical topic. So I’m torn on question myself.

]]> By: James Grimmelmann http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/wikipedia_in_th.html/comment-page-1#comment-59400 James Grimmelmann Sun, 23 Apr 2006 01:54:05 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/04/wikipedia-in-the-courts.html#comment-59400 The case is Campbell v. Sec'y of Heath & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775 (2006). Interestingly, the court didn't provide an exact citation to the location of the "disclaimers" on Wikipedia. They come from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Researching with Wikipedia</a>. That page is a regular Wikipedia page. Thus, the "pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing series of disclaimers" aren't actually disclaimers in a legal sense; they're just statements that Wikipedia users have made about Wikipedia itself. The case is Campbell v. Sec’y of Heath & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775 (2006). Interestingly, the court didn’t provide an exact citation to the location of the “disclaimers” on Wikipedia. They come from Wikipedia: Researching with Wikipedia. That page is a regular Wikipedia page. Thus, the “pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing series of disclaimers” aren’t actually disclaimers in a legal sense; they’re just statements that Wikipedia users have made about Wikipedia itself.

]]>