Comments on: Citing Wikipedia — Harmless Error? http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/citing_wikipedi.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jason Richards http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/citing_wikipedi.html/comment-page-1#comment-47550 Jason Richards Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:15:58 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/citing-wikipedia-harmless-error.html#comment-47550 Prof. Ramji-Nogales, As the author of the article cited by the 8th Circuit in Badasa, I was suprised and pleased that a court of appeals has finally taken a stand against the "Wikipedia jurisprudence" that has infected our legal community. Glad you liked my quote. Prof. Ramji-Nogales,

As the author of the article cited by the 8th Circuit in Badasa, I was suprised and pleased that a court of appeals has finally taken a stand against the “Wikipedia jurisprudence” that has infected our legal community. Glad you liked my quote.

]]> By: Ubertrout http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/citing_wikipedi.html/comment-page-1#comment-47549 Ubertrout Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:00:29 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/citing-wikipedia-harmless-error.html#comment-47549 It's interesting that the other materials weren't even mentioned (despite the coverage of this case, it's clear that Wikipedia wasn't the only source cited). While some might see a lazy lawyer, others see a string cite which closes with "See also, Wikipedia..." That said, it's certainly true you should never cite wikipedia for anything but tangential non-legal points (the best example being a passing mention of popular culture). And perhaps ironically, some quick Googling leads to <a href="http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/rir/?action=record.viewrec&gotorec=449825" rel="nofollow">much better evidence</a> that an Ethiopian Laissez-Passer is exactly what DHS said it was. It’s interesting that the other materials weren’t even mentioned (despite the coverage of this case, it’s clear that Wikipedia wasn’t the only source cited). While some might see a lazy lawyer, others see a string cite which closes with “See also, Wikipedia…”

That said, it’s certainly true you should never cite wikipedia for anything but tangential non-legal points (the best example being a passing mention of popular culture). And perhaps ironically, some quick Googling leads to much better evidence that an Ethiopian Laissez-Passer is exactly what DHS said it was.

]]> By: TJ http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/citing_wikipedi.html/comment-page-1#comment-47548 TJ Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:02:17 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/citing-wikipedia-harmless-error.html#comment-47548 And your student will presumably fire back that judges cite Wikipedia as the authoritative source in the Seventh Circuit. See, e.g., Rickher v. Home Depot, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008). This time, without alternative primary sources--and indeed for a proposition directly contrary to two primary sources that were cited to the court. And your student will presumably fire back that judges cite Wikipedia as the authoritative source in the Seventh Circuit. See, e.g., Rickher v. Home Depot, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008). This time, without alternative primary sources–and indeed for a proposition directly contrary to two primary sources that were cited to the court.

]]> By: James Grimmelmann http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/citing_wikipedi.html/comment-page-1#comment-47547 James Grimmelmann Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:55:48 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/citing-wikipedia-harmless-error.html#comment-47547 The " does not cite any references or sources" warning almost certainly postdates the IJ's reliance on it. It was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laissez-passer&oldid=211081915" rel="nofollow">added</a> on May 8. The ” does not cite any references or sources” warning almost certainly postdates the IJ’s reliance on it. It was added on May 8.

]]>