The IT Law Wiki
Explore
Main Page
All Pages
Community
Interactive Maps
Random page
TopContent
Most Visited Pages
Cell phone
Radio frequency spectrum
RFID tag
Cloud consumer
Internet
Newly Changed Pages
Computer terminal
Persuasive evidence
Website operator
Bfdi
Email bombing
Pornography
Message modification
Most Popular Pages
community
Community portal
forum
FANDOM
Fan Central
BETA
Games
Anime
Movies
TV
Video
Wikis
Explore Wikis
Community Central
Start a Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Sign In
Sign In
Register
The IT Law Wiki
34,539
pages
Explore
Main Page
All Pages
Community
Interactive Maps
Random page
TopContent
Most Visited Pages
Cell phone
Radio frequency spectrum
RFID tag
Cloud consumer
Internet
Newly Changed Pages
Computer terminal
Persuasive evidence
Website operator
Bfdi
Email bombing
Pornography
Message modification
Most Popular Pages
community
Community portal
forum
Editing
Wikipedia
Back to page
Edit
Edit source
View history
Talk (0)
Edit Page
Wikipedia
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit appears to have already been undone.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Definition == '''[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]''' is a resource for conducting research and a community of people with similar interests who help shape and guide what is [[post]]ed under entries [[online]]. Wikipedia has a strong set of rules for editing entries. == Wikipedia as Evidence == Wikipedia is a self-described "online open-content collaborative encyclopedia." Wikipedia: General Disclaimer, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer. This means that, except in certain cases to prevent [[disruption]] or [[vandalism]], anyone can write and make changes to Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia: About, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About. Volunteer editors can submit [[content]] as registered members or [[anonymous]]ly. ''Id.'' Each time an editor modifies [[content]], the editor's [[identity]] or [[IP address]] and a summary of the modification, including a [[time stamp]], become available on the article's "history" tab. Jason C. Miller & Hannah B. Murray, "Wikipedia in Court: When and How Citing Wikipedia and Other Consensus Websites Is Appropriate," 84 St. John's L. Rev. 633, 637 (2010). Wikipedia is one of the largest reference [[website]]s in the world, with over "70,000 active contributors working on more than 41,000,000 articles in 294 languages." Wikipedia: About, ''supra.'' References to Wikipedia in judicial opinions began in 2004 and have increased each year, although such references are still included in only a small percentage of opinions. Jodi L. Wilson, "Proceed with Extreme Caution: Citation to Wikipedia in Light of Contributor Demographics and Content Policies," 16 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 857, 868 (2014). These cites often relate to nondispositive matters or are included in string citations. But, some courts "have taken judicial notice of Wikipedia [[content]], based their reasoning on Wikipedia entries, and decided dispositive motions on the basis of Wikipedia [[content]]." Lee F. Peoples, "The Citation of Wikipedia in Judicial Opinions," 12 Yale J.L. & Tech. 1, 3 (2009–2010). While there has been extensive research on Wikipedia's [[accuracy]], "the results are mixed—some studies show it is just as good as the experts, [while] others show Wikipedia is not accurate at all." Michael Blanding, "Wikipedia or Encyclopædia Britannica: Which Has More Bias?," Forbes (Jan. 20, 2015) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaediabritannica-which-has-more-bias/#5c254ac51ccf). Any court reliance on Wikipedia may understandably raise concerns because of "the impermanence of Wikipedia [[content]], which can be edited by anyone at any time, and the dubious quality of the [[information]] found on Wikipedia." Peoples, ''supra'' at 3. Cass Sunstein, legal scholar and professor at Harvard Law School, also warns that judges’ use of Wikipedia "might introduce opportunistic editing." Noam Cohen, "Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively," N.Y. Times (Jan. 29, 2007) (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html). The Fifth Circuit has similarly warned against using Wikipedia in judicial opinions, agreeing "with those courts that have found Wikipedia to be an unreliable source of [[information]]" and advising "against any improper reliance on it or similarly unreliable internet sources in the future." Bing Shun Li v. Holder, 400 F. App'x 854, 857 (5th Cir. 2010); ''accord'' Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910–11 (8th Cir. 2008). For others in the legal community, however, Wikipedia is a valuable resource. Judge Richard Posner has said that "Wikipedia is a terrific resource . . . because it [is] so convenient, it often has been updated recently and is very accurate." Cohen, ''supra.'' However, Judge Posner also noted that it "wouldn’t be right to use it in a critical issue." ''Id.'' Other scholars agree that Wikipedia is most appropriate for "soft facts," when courts want to provide context to help make their opinions more readable. ''Id.'' Moreover, because Wikipedia is constantly updated, some argue that it can be "a good source for definitions of new slang terms, for popular culture references, and for jargon and lingo including computer and technology terms." Peoples, ''supra'' at 31. They also argue that [[open-source]] tools like Wikipedia may be useful when courts are trying to determine public perception or community norms. ''Id.'' at 32. This usefulness is lessened, however, by the recognition that Wikipedia contributors do not necessarily represent a cross-section of society, as research has shown that they are overwhelmingly male, under forty years old, and living outside of the United States. Wilson, ''supra'' at 885–89. Given the arguments both for and against reliance on Wikipedia, as well as the variety of ways in which the source may be utilized, a bright-line rule is untenable. Of the many concerns expressed about Wikipedia use, lack of [[reliability]] is paramount and may often preclude its use as a source of authority in opinions. At the least, we find it unlikely Wikipedia could suffice as the sole source of authority on an issue of any significance to a case. That said, Wikipedia can often be useful as a starting point for research purposes. ''See'' Peoples, ''supra'' at 28 ("Selectively using Wikipedia for . . . minor points in an opinion is an economical use of judges' and law clerks' time."). . . . == Source == * "Wikipedia as Evidence": ''D Magazine Partners v. Rosenthal,'' 2017 WL 1041234 (Tex. Sup. Ct. Mar. 17, 2017). == See also == * [[Wiki]] * [[Wikipedia as Evidence]] [[Category:Data]] [[Category:Internet]] [[Category:Business]] [[Category:Definition]] [[Category:Content]] [[Category:Social media]]
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to the The IT Law Wiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Follow on IG
TikTok
Join Fan Lab