•Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the US Courts to Use?
Profy -10 minutes ago
The Volokh Conspiracy notes that courts have cited Wikipedia in decisions over 300 times. That's three hundred times that the user-created encyclopedia has ...
View the article
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Thu 31st July 2008, 1:15am) 
•Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the US Courts to Use?
Profy -10 minutes ago
The Volokh Conspiracy notes that courts have cited Wikipedia in decisions over 300 times. That's three hundred times that the user-created encyclopedia has ...
View the article
QUOTE
In the decision for Rickher v. Home Depot, Inc., the Seventh Circuit uses the Wikipedia definition of "wear and tear" over the definition given by Webster's II New College Dictionary and Random House Webster's Collge Dictionary:
Can we say "told you so" to those who think that Wikipedia is Mainly Harmless (and irrelevant)?
Yeah, there was an article about this like 18 months ago in the New Yorker or something. That article helped slow the tide. I think many didn't realize it was freely-editable.
As for the question: anyone who thinks that multi-million dollar verdict should turn on a phrase in Wikipedia--where either side can edit--needs their head examined.
An article should also be written about it's use by the PTO. Patent examiners are under pressure to work quickly, and Wikipedia is often used for background of the supposed state of art. Patent applications are even worse because they are one-sided prosecutions. I would bet money that a patent agent somewhere has massaged an article to make the applied technology sound more novel than it actually is.
As for the question: anyone who thinks that multi-million dollar verdict should turn on a phrase in Wikipedia--where either side can edit--needs their head examined.
An article should also be written about it's use by the PTO. Patent examiners are under pressure to work quickly, and Wikipedia is often used for background of the supposed state of art. Patent applications are even worse because they are one-sided prosecutions. I would bet money that a patent agent somewhere has massaged an article to make the applied technology sound more novel than it actually is.
QUOTE(One @ Thu 31st July 2008, 1:51am)
I would bet money that a patent agent somewhere has massaged an article to make the applied technology sound more novel than it actually is.
Only one agent?
I have an idea.
Wikipedia can and and in fact SHOULD be used in court cases, expecially for serious capital cases.
The catch? Wikipedia information should only be used for cases involving Wikipedia administrators as defendants.
Wikipedia can and and in fact SHOULD be used in court cases, expecially for serious capital cases.
The catch? Wikipedia information should only be used for cases involving Wikipedia administrators as defendants.
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 30th July 2008, 8:26pm)
Can we say "told you so" to those who think that Wikipedia is Mainly Harmless (and irrelevant)?
Earth is Mostly Harmless (according to the Hitchhiker's Guide), and Wikipedia uses a logo that resembles a globe, so therefore it too is Mostly Harmless. Don't Panic!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.