Supreme Court upholds appeal...due to Wikipedia

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Mod
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Supreme Court upholds appeal...due to Wikipedia

Post by Kumioko » Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:26 am

A news article today at https://cyprus-mail.com/2019/12/11/supreme-court-upholds-appeal-finding-initial-ruling-based-on-wikipedia-pages/ explains how the Supreme court of Cyprus upheld an appeal because the original rejection determination was based on incorrect and unreliable information in Wikipedia.

“The credibility of an applicant goes through the credibility of the sources used to verify this credibility,”


This shows, yet again, that Wikipedia and the information it contains is often not a good things and sometimes, even ruins lives!
#BbbGate

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Supreme Court upholds appeal...due to Wikipedia

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:47 pm

heh, not the only time a court decision was screwed up by a judge or jurors looking at WP for "help". Thing is, we will never know how often this happens. I suspect it could easily be a daily occurrence.

There were TWO articles in the book wiki about court decisions using WP. I will quote one of them. It only scratches the surface.
Use of Wikipedia in legal cases
Legal professionals should not do it, especially in a legal case. But they do, increasingly. Even judges
poke around on Wikipedia after "Googling" for specific information. And over and over, the is waved
around as "proof" of Wikipedia's "reliability".

2006
"Appellate judges criticized for citing Wikipedia in Apple vs. Doe case." 1 , Ars Technica, 30 May 2006.
" I don't know if this citation is a first for Wikipedia or not, but like other precedents set by this
decision, it has clear ramifications for the future of online media. Already, the idea of using Wikipedia
as a source is being called into question given its notoriety for inaccuracies 2 . The Register, a relatively
conservative British publication, seems to feel that using Wikipedia as supporting evidence would be
ample grounds for overturning the case 3 . They are quick to point out that citing Wikipedia in student
paper is grounds for an automatic 'F' in some circles. "
"Wikipedia may not be as reputable as the Register perceives itself to be, but I suspect this won't be its
last appearance in the courthouse. And as for this case, I find it hard to imagine that Apple could get
the case overturned simply based on use of Wikipedia. Most of the citations are definitions of "trade
secrets" like Asteroid and its relation to Garage Band (and to a little-know video game from the
1980s), so one imagines that if Wikipedia weren't providing the information, Apple would have to give
better details on the secrets that were allegedly violated. In that case, referencing a source like
Wikipedia, known for being inaccurate, would presumedly help Apple deflect, obfuscate and generally
keep their secrets to themselves. "

2007
"Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively" 4 , New York Times, 29 January 2007.
"A simple search of published court decisions shows that Wikipedia is frequently cited by judges
around the country, involving serious issues and the bizarre — such as a 2005 tax case before the
Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the definition of “beverage” that involved hundreds of
thousands of dollars, and, just this week, a case in Federal District Court in Florida that involved the
term “booty music” as played during a wet T-shirt contest."
"More than 100 judicial rulings have relied on Wikipedia, beginning in 2004, including 13 from circuit
courts of appeal, one step below the Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court thus far has never cited
Wikipedia.)"
"“Wikipedia is a terrific resource,” said Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago. “Partly because it so convenient, it often has been
updated recently and is very accurate.” But, he added: “It wouldn’t be right to use it in a critical
issue. If the safety of a product is at issue, you wouldn’t look it up in Wikipedia.”"
"Judge Posner recently cited a Wikipedia article on Andrew Golota, whom he called the “world’s most
colorful boxer,” about a drug case involving the fighter’s former trainer, a tangent with no connection
to the issues before his court. He did so despite his own experience with Wikipedia, which included an
erroneous mention of Ann Coulter, a conservative lightning rod, as being a former clerk of his. "

2009
Lee Peoples study 5 , Yale University. 51 pages of examples of judges and counsel citing Wikipedia
and/or squabbling over its reliability."Although information obtained from Wikipedia does not have to meet the requirements of Rule 201 in
this context, Wikipedia may not be the best source. Using a Wikipedia entry to support the court’s
analysis or reasoning lends authority to Wikipedia as a legitimate and credible source. Judges who
might not have been inclined to use Wikipedia in their opinions may be less skeptical of Wikipedia
when they discover previous judicial opinions citing a Wikipedia entry to support the opinion’s
analysis or reasoning."
"Wikipedia in Court: When and How Citing Wikipedia and other Consensus Websites is Appropriate" 6 ,
Jason C. Miller and Hannah Murray, St. John's Law Review. A series of "justifications" for citing
Wikipedia. It even addresses the use of Urban Dictionary for "information" about slang terms.
"A broader understanding of when it is okay to cite Wikipedia will build the necessary confidence for
parties and courts to cite—and be honest about their usage of— consensus websites. Doing it right—
citing the right consensus website for the right reasons with the right format—will minimize criticisms
and help build a better legal profession. If we fail to adopt and follow common sense standards for
websites like Wikipedia, controversy caused by inappropriate uses will eventually cause attorneys to
shun the encyclopedia and deny our profession a valuable resource."

2011
"The Internet and Its Impact on Litigation: What Can Attorneys and Judges Cite in the Internet Era?" 7 ,
an essay from a major American law firm. Gives good reasonable advice, which is apparently ignored
frequently.
"Know what the courts are citing and what they are avoiding. For example, Wikipedia has been cited
for general propositions by multiple courts but has not been widely accepted for use.
Urbandictionary.com has also been cited by multiple courts, and Mapquest.com appears to be
generally cited by courts throughout the country."
"Be careful using online citations. Web addresses change on a regular basis, and as a result, your
citations may not be correct by the time someone else is trying to find the source you are citing."
"WikiMedia – The New Secondary Legal Source" 8 , a presentation given at the 2011 "Wiki Conference
India". Deals mostly with citation of Wikipedia articles in Indian courts. Written by a very prominent
New Delhi attorney, he's in favor of it.
"In this backdrop it is amply clear that in India too we have started using Wikipedia, the free
encylopedia with ease and without hesitation but definitely with restriction. Its therefore time that
‘Wikipedia as a Secondary LegalSource’ be acknowledged in consonance with the zeitgeist!"

2012
Volokh Conspiracy post 9 : As a judge said:
"I concur fully in the lead opinion. I write separately to explain why I believe that opinion
appropriately cites Wikipedia in construing the term “jet ski” in the insurance contract at issue here.
Wikipedia has been cited in hundreds of American judicial opinions, including one issued by the Utah
Supreme Court. See State v. Alverez, 2006 UT 61, ¶ 16 n.5, 147 P.3d 425 (citing a Wikipedia entry on
Jesus Malverde). But today’s lead opinion is the first time this court has cited it."
"Wikipedia is a “free, collaboratively edited, and multilingual Internet encyclopedia” whose 22
million articles (over 4 million in English) are written by volunteers. Wikipedia, Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia 10 (as of Aug. 13, 2012, 18:48 GMT). Most of its articles can be
edited by anyone with access to the site. Wikipedia claims to be “the largest and most popular general
reference work on the Internet,” with “an estimated 365 million readers worldwide” and “2.7 billionmonthly pageviews from the United States alone.” Id. (footnotes omitted)."
"Because Wikipedia is an open ‐ source project, questions arise as to its reliability. Indeed, Wikipedia’s
own article on the subject references various studies as well as opposing views from librarians,
academics, experts in science and medicine, and editors of other encyclopedias. See Wikipedia,
Reliability of Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia 11 (as of Aug. 13, 2012,
18:51 GMT)."

2014
Above the Law blog, 9 May 2014 1213 :
"Wikipedia actually has a page devoted to documents used in legal proceedings 14 that have cited
Wikipedia as a source. One particular case provides an in-depth discussion of whether or not the use
of Wikipedia is “reliable,” interestingly enough.....Alfa Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank 15 , 475 F. Supp. 2d 357
(S.D.N.Y. 2007), was a trademark infringement case in which one party sought to have the opposing
counsel’s expert witnesses testimony excluded due, in part, because a witness relied on Wikipedia in
developing their testimony. The opinion of the court devoted a discussion to the “Reliability of Internet
Sources.”"
"I decided to log in to Westlaw real quick to see what were the most recent opinions that cited
Wikipedia as an authority per Circuit. They are as follows:"
• 11th Circuit, Walinbay S.A. v. Fresh Results, LLC United States District Court, S.D. Florida.
February 19, 2014, Relying on Wikipedia for definition and description of “drayage.”
• 10th Circuit, S.E.C. v. Goldstone United States District Court, D. New Mexico. March 31, 2014
2014 WL 1285510, Relying on Wikipedia for definition and description of “Superjumbo” and
“jumbo,” in reference to ARM securities.
• 9th Circuit, In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation United States District Court, N.D.
California., San Jose Division March 26, 2014 2014 WL 1266091, Relying on Wikipedia for
definition and description of “HTTP referer.”
• 8th Circuit Cumella v. Colvin United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division.
March 26, 2013 936 F. Supp. 2d 1120, Relying on Wikipedia for definition and description of
“nuchal ligament,” “Tinel sign,” “Phalen’s maneuver,” and more.
• 7th Circuit, Conrad v. AM Community Credit Union United States Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit. April 14, 2014 2014 WL 1408635, Relying on Wikipedia for definition and description
of “dance notation.”
• 6th Circuit, Cantrell v. Owners Ins. Co. United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern
Division, Pikeville. March 21, 2014 2014 WL 1168807, Relying on Wikipedia for definition and
description of “Quantum Superposition.” (Aside: Judge Thapar is funny. This was the best
opinion; you should go read it.)
• 5th Circuit, Francis v. GRT Utilicorp, Inc. United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana,
Lafayette Division. February 25, 2013 2013 WL 749799, Relying on Wikipedia for definition
and description of “original equipment manufacturer.”
• 4th Circuit, Capital Concepts, Inc. v. Mountain Corp. United States District Court, W.D.
Virginia, Charlottesville Division. March 29, 2013 936 F. Supp. 2d 661, Relying on Wikipedia
for definition and description of “ipse dixit.”
• 3rd Circuit, Robocast, Inc. v. Apple Inc. United States District Court, D. Delaware. January 28,
2014 2014 WL 334183, Relying on Wikipedia for definition and description of “Garbage in,
garbage out.”• 2nd Circuit, U.S. v. Santiago United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 19, 2013
2013 WL 6690303, Relying on Wikipedia for the factual statement that “NCIS holds the
distinction of being the most-watched network television program in the United States for ten
consecutive years.”
• 1st Circuit, U.S. v. O’Brien United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. February 06, 2014
Slip Copy 2014 WL 535663 Relying on Wikipedia for the factual statement that Judge Saylor
(who wrote said opinion) was a partner at Goodwin Procter before becoming a federal judge.
And......
"Paper is dead. Case reporters are gone. All work is done on computers. There is Westlaw, there
is Lexis. Almost all legal research is done via the internet. But legal research is limited to just that
— legal. You can’t find the definition for “quantum superposition” on Westlaw. So judges and
clerks do what everyone else does when they need to know the answer to something."
"They Google it."
"Go ahead and Google any of the above phrases and see what is the first thing that comes up. It’s
Wikipedia every time. Wikipedia is the default answer. Google says Wikipedia provides the
correct answer and people rely on Google. Maybe the definition or information provided on
Wikipedia is not 100 percent the most accurate way to define something. Maybe it could be said a
bit better or with a bit more clarity."
"But given high caseloads and little time, I imagine that for many judges Wikipedia is largely
“good enough” — just like it is for everyone else."

Post Reply