Site Meter

Category: Wiki




Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute recently launched WEX, “a collaboratively built, freely available legal dictionary and encyclopedia.” Sounds peachy. What is it?

According to an email which has been circulating from the Tom Bruce, Director of the LII [who kindly gave me permission to quote]:

At the risk of sounding a little more diffident than perhaps I should, I’ll say that we’ve just put something sorta new and very interesting on the LII site. It’s called WEX, and we are hoping that it will grow into a very ambitious and interesting project indeed — interesting and ambitious enough that we should be trumpeting it from the housetops, I suppose, but for the moment we’re confining ourselves to low-key conversations with our friends and supporters. Hence this note.

WEX . . . will be the first collaboratively edited legal encyclopedia and dictionary on the web, aimed specifically at law novices.

Read More


Suing Wikipedia

Wikipedia.jpgWhat happens if there’s a Wikipedia article about you that’s unflattering? What if it is in error or revealing of your private life? Wikipedia, for those not familiar with it, is an online encyclopedia that is written and edited collectively by anybody who wants to participate.

Daniel Brandt, a blogger who maintains blogs called Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch complained to Wikipedia administrators asking them to delete an entry about him. What should one’s rights in this regard be?

Here’s what Brandt writes:

There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia, consider themselves responsible for the content. . . .

At the same time that no one claims responsibility, there are two unique characteristics of Wikipedia that can be very damaging to a person, corporation, or group. The first is that anyone can edit an article, and there is no guarantee that any article you read has not been edited maliciously, and remains uncorrected in that state, at the precise time that you access that article.

The second unique characteristic is that Wikipedia articles, and in some cases even the free-for-all “talk” discussions behind the articles, rank very highly in the major search engines. This means that Wikipedia’s potential for inflicting damage is amplified by several orders of magnitude.

Brandt muses whether he ought to sue Wikipedia:

Read More



Dan mentions the possibility of writing a paper by Wiki. He even hints that this could affect legal academia. (And I for one am shocked, shocked at the suggestion that the responsibility of writing legal scholarship might be farmed out to anonymous hooligans on the web, rather than continuing with the time-honored method of farming it out to minimum-wage research assistants).

(Definitional note for those who didn’t read Dan’s post: A wiki is an open website which allows anyone to edit any entry; the most successful is the online encyclopedia Wikipedia).

But let’s ask the real question — is Dan going far enough with wikimania? Or are there more places where wiki adoption could take the place of help out law professors?


U.S. News unreliable? Princeton Review incomprehensible? Leiter just too political? Welcome to WikiRankings. Every school is ranked, and everyone can participate in the process. Indulge in your urge to tell people that NYU stinks or that [insert your alma mater here] is really the best school in the country. (Potential downside: Columbia grads who insist on continually mentioning the fact that NYU stinks).

Wiki Law Review.

Your article will be read by an unknown number of random web participants, who can vote on which articles they like best. (How is this different from normal law review submission?)

Once accepted for publication, it will be edited through the efforts of anonymous Wikizens and then published online. (Oh, it’s an online journal!).

Hey, I like these innovations so far. Long live Wikis! I suppose it doesn’t hurt any that I’m teaching at Thomas Jefferson — currently ranked #7 in the country, according to WikiRankings* — and that I’ve just had five articles accepted by the Wiki L. Rev. Where else can we introduce Wikis?

Wiki Tenure Committee.

On second thought, let’s not go there.

* I deny all reports that in an original version of this post I wrote “and it would be ranked higher if I had coded a better javascript voting program.”


Wiki Your Papers?

Wikipedia.jpgNeed a proofreader and fact checker? Let the collective community of the Internet do it for you. According to CNET:

When Esquire magazine writer A.J. Jacobs decided to do an article about the freely distributable and freely editable online encyclopedia Wikipedia, he took an innovative approach: He posted a crummy, error-laden draft of the story to the site.

Wikipedia lets anyone create a new article for the encyclopedia or edit an existing entry. As a result, since it was started in 2001, Wikipedia has grown to include nearly 749,000 articles in English alone–countless numbers of which have been edited by multiple members of the community. (There are versions of Wikipedia in 109 other languages as well.) . . . .

Jacobs decided to craft an article about Wikipedia, complete with a series of intentional mistakes and typos, and post it on the site. The hope was that the community itself would be able to fix the errors and create a clean version that would be ready for publication in Esquire’s December issue. The original version was preserved for posterity.

“The idea I had–which Jimmy (Wales, Wikipedia’s founder) loved–is that I’d write a rough draft of the article and then Jimmy would put it on a site for the Wikipedia community to rewrite and edit,” Jacobs wrote on the page introducing the experiment. Esquire “would print the ‘before’ and ‘after’ versions of the articles. So here’s your chance to make this article a real one. All improvements welcome.” . . .

According to the Wikipedia page for Jacobs’ story, the article was edited 224 times in the first 24 hours after Jacobs posted it, and another 149 times in the next 24 hours.

What result?

On the latest version of the article, the original author writes:

Hello Wikipedians,

I just wanted to thank you all so much for participating in this experiment. It was absolutely fascinating. I was riveted to my computer, pressing refresh every 45 seconds to see the next iteration. And the next and the next. For the last few days, my wife has been what you might call a Wikipedia Widow.

I feel like I should submit all my articles to the community to get them Wikipedia-ized. I can’t wait to print this in Esquire magazine.

Thanks again.

AJ Jacobs

If any students are reading, don’t even think about it . . .

Hat tip: Michael Zimmer