Massive pro-reform protest in Tehran, Iran

[Nik]

btw, moron, your cite of that case does not change the fact that in college you will FAIL if you use wiki as a source

so you FAIL yet again

Actually it depends on the college, dipshit. I am in a field where research matters a TON. And hey, people use Wiki.

As I said, it (like everything else) isn't 100% reliable. But its generally pretty damn good.

Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.

Actually wiki has been increasingly cited in legal briefs.

 

[Nik]

btw, moron, your cite of that case does not change the fact that in college you will FAIL if you use wiki as a source

so you FAIL yet again

Actually it depends on the college, dipshit. I am in a field where research matters a TON. And hey, people use Wiki.

As I said, it (like everything else) isn't 100% reliable. But its generally pretty damn good.

Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.

Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:

2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)

Or this one:

2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)

There are hundreds of other cases I could cite. By the way, those are Appellate briefs. I can cite court opinions as well.

 

[jreeves]

Actually it depends on the college, dipshit. I am in a field where research matters a TON. And hey, people use Wiki.

As I said, it (like everything else) isn't 100% reliable. But its generally pretty damn good.

Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.

Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:

2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)

Or this one:

2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)

There are hundreds of other cases I could cite. By the way, those are Appellate briefs. I can cite court opinions as well.

I would be interested in seeing the actual case citations please? Since I don't subscribe to Westlaw...

Not that I don't trust you or anything....

 

[jreeves]

Actually it depends on the college, dipshit. I am in a field where research matters a TON. And hey, people use Wiki.

As I said, it (like everything else) isn't 100% reliable. But its generally pretty damn good.

Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.

Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:

2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)

Or this one:

2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)

There are hundreds of other cases I could cite. By the way, those are Appellate briefs. I can cite court opinions as well.

Yep and here is the result...
Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
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 been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.

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:

"Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."

I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used.


That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....

 

[jreeves]

Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.

Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:

2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)

Or this one:

2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)

There are hundreds of other cases I could cite. By the way, those are Appellate briefs. I can cite court opinions as well.

Yep and here is the result...
Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
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 been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.

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:

"Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."

I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used.


That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....

Furthermore...
Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia - Ars Technica
References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.

The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.

The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.

Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.

That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"

Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification.

 

[jreeves]

Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:

2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)

Or this one:

2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)

There are hundreds of other cases I could cite. By the way, those are Appellate briefs. I can cite court opinions as well.

Yep and here is the result...
Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
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 been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.

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:

"Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."

I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used.


That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....

Furthermore...
Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia - Ars Technica
References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.

The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.

The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.

Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.

That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"

Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification.

Also, if possible show me one opinion rendered by SCOTUS that relies on Wiki?

 

[DiveCon]

Yep and here is the result...
Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
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 been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.

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:

"Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."

I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used.


That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....

Furthermore...
Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia - Ars Technica
References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.

The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.

The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.

Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.

That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"

Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification.

Also, if possible show me one opinion rendered by SCOTUS that relies on Wiki?

hell, it will likely happen, they've used foreign law as a basis of a ruling

 

[jreeves]

Furthermore...
Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia - Ars Technica
References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.

The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.

The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.

Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.

That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"

Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification.

Also, if possible show me one opinion rendered by SCOTUS that relies on Wiki?

hell, it will likely happen, they've used foreign law as a basis of a ruling

Not a snow balls chance in hell...
Its an unreliable source of information(wiki), most courts have higher standards than wiki....
Especially the highest court in the land..

 

[DiveCon]

Also, if possible show me one opinion rendered by SCOTUS that relies on Wiki?

hell, it will likely happen, they've used foreign law as a basis of a ruling

Not a snow balls chance in hell...
Its an unreliable source of information(wiki), most courts have higher standards than wiki....
Especially the highest court in the land..

one would hope so

but when they can use FOREIGN LAW as a basis of a ruling, then no holds are barred

 

[jillian]

one would hope so

but when they can use FOREIGN LAW as a basis of a ruling, then no holds are barred

they didn't use foreign law as the "basis of a ruling". they looked at how foreign law addressed a particular, relevant issue for which we had no particular precedent and examined it as part of the larger case.

 

[Nik]

Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.

Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:

2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)

Or this one:

2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)

There are hundreds of other cases I could cite. By the way, those are Appellate briefs. I can cite court opinions as well.

I would be interested in seeing the actual case citations please? Since I don't subscribe to Westlaw...

Not that I don't trust you or anything....

I thought you were an attorney?

 

[Nik]

Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.

Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:

2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)

Or this one:

2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)

There are hundreds of other cases I could cite. By the way, those are Appellate briefs. I can cite court opinions as well.

Yep and here is the result...
Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
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 been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.

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:

"Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."

I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used.


That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....

Yes, Volokh has worries. But the ridiculous assertion by you that using it would get one laughed out of court is nonsense. Numerous lawyers have used it, as have numerous courts. And these aren't in the court of first instance, either. Those 300 cases were at the appellate level.

 

[Nik]

Yep and here is the result...
Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
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 been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.

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:

"Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."

I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used.


That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....

Furthermore...
Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia - Ars Technica
References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.

The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.

The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.

Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.

That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"

Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification.

Also, if possible show me one opinion rendered by SCOTUS that relies on Wiki?

Hasn't happened yet. It has, however, happened that several state supreme courts have relied on Wiki. Or is the Michigan Supreme Court not a prestigious enough institution for you?

 

[jreeves]

Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:

2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)

Or this one:

2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)

There are hundreds of other cases I could cite. By the way, those are Appellate briefs. I can cite court opinions as well.

I would be interested in seeing the actual case citations please? Since I don't subscribe to Westlaw...

Not that I don't trust you or anything....

I thought you were an attorney?

I can be an attorney and not subscribe to westlaw. As I thought though you won't provide the case citations.

 

[jreeves]

Furthermore...
Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia - Ars Technica
References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.

The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.

The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.

Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.

That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"

Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification.

Also, if possible show me one opinion rendered by SCOTUS that relies on Wiki?

Hasn't happened yet. It has, however, happened that several state supreme courts have relied on Wiki. Or is the Michigan Supreme Court not a prestigious enough institution for you?

Yep and the 8th circuit remanded a case based on wiki.

 

[Sunni Man]

In the biggest protest ever since the Islamic revolution 30 years ago, hundreds of thousands of people showed up to support Mir Hossein Mousavi, the pro-reform candidate. This is just two days before the election day.

The protestered walked towards the "Azadi" (Freedom) monument which has been a symbol of Tehran for a long time. While one would see supporters of Ahmadi-nejad here and there (the last two photos), the whole scene was dominated by color green, which represents the "green movement" of reform - a symbolic gesture of Mousavi's supporters.

Massive pro-reform protest in Tehran, Iran - iReport.com

What the western media is not reporting.

Is that the pro Ahamdinejad rallys are several times larger than the reform protests.

 

[jreeves]

Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:

2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)

Or this one:

2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)

There are hundreds of other cases I could cite. By the way, those are Appellate briefs. I can cite court opinions as well.

Yep and here is the result...
Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
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 been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.

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:

"Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."

I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used.


That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....

Yes, Volokh has worries. But the ridiculous assertion by you that using it would get one laughed out of court is nonsense. Numerous lawyers have used it, as have numerous courts. And these aren't in the court of first instance, either. Those 300 cases were at the appellate level.

You can use it sure but is a judge going to give it must credence?

 

[Nik]

I would be interested in seeing the actual case citations please? Since I don't subscribe to Westlaw...

Not that I don't trust you or anything....

I thought you were an attorney?

I can be an attorney and not subscribe to westlaw. As I thought though you won't provide the case citations.

Those aren't cases, they are briefs.

 

[Nik]

Yep and here is the result...
Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
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 been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.

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:

"Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."

I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used.


That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....

Yes, Volokh has worries. But the ridiculous assertion by you that using it would get one laughed out of court is nonsense. Numerous lawyers have used it, as have numerous courts. And these aren't in the court of first instance, either. Those 300 cases were at the appellate level.

You can use it sure but is a judge going to give it must credence?

Some are, some aren't. Judges who have cited it probably will give it credence.

 

[jreeves]

I thought you were an attorney?

I can be an attorney and not subscribe to westlaw. As I thought though you won't provide the case citations.

Those aren't cases, they are briefs.

You had said opinions also correct? The briefs are part of cases correct?