Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Free Case Law From U.S. Supreme Court?

Via Robert Ambrogi's Law Sites, let's look at the history of U.S. Supreme Court Case reporting. As mentioned on Ambrogi's blog in a post titled Free Case Law - and a history lesson, many websites offering free case law date it back to 1754, which is even before the existence of the actual U.S. Supreme Court itself.

Ambrogi writes,
Law.com this week published my article, Get Your Free Case Law on the Web. No sooner did it appear than I received an e-mail from a reader questioning how several of the sites discussed in the article could claim to have U.S. Supreme Court cases from before there was a Supreme Court. In fact, they claimed to have Supreme Court cases dating back to 1754 -- even before the American Revolution.

And the answer is ... courtesy of Wikipedia.
None of the decisions appearing in the first volume and most of the second volume of United States Reports are actually decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Instead, they are decisions from various Pennsylvania courts, dating from the colonial period and the first decade after Independence. Alexander Dallas, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania lawyer and journalist, had been in the business of reporting these cases for newspapers and periodicals. He subsequently began compiling his case reports in a bound volume, which he called “Reports of cases ruled and adjudged in the courts of Pennsylvania, before and since the Revolution”. This would come to be known as the first volume of "Dallas Reports."

Take a look at the entire post; worth while reading.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Be Aware Of Wikipedia!

Via WisBlawg, a post titled Student's Wikipedia Hoax Fools Journalists, Bloggers, writes about an example of unreliability of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. I think it is safe to say that everyone of us, at least once, received the warning to verify information found online against a reputable source. We all heard the advice to always make sure information found online is reliable and authenticated.

This story goes:

When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he said he was testing how our globalized, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news.

His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.

The sociology major's made-up quote -- which he added to the Wikipedia page of Maurice Jarre hours after the French composer's death March 28 -- flew straight on to dozens of U.S. blogs and newspaper Web sites in Britain, Australia and India.


Just to make sure, it is fine to use Wikipedia for a quick look up to gain a general idea of a topic, but to cite to Wikipedia or completely rely on the information found within, without verifying the reliability against a reputable source, well - that is just a gamble! So, let's warn ourselves once again! And I'll take advantage now to mention the Pace Law Library Research Assistants Guide that contains a section on evaluating Internet Resources. Take a look!

Friday, April 24, 2009

Reliability of Wikipedia

Are you or were you thinking about citing Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, in your memo, essay, report, or not to mention in your legal document, such as a brief? Hm, take a moment and think twice.
A New Jersey judge who allowed a lawyer to plug an evidentiary gap with a Wikipedia page has been reversed on the ground that the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" is not a reliable source of information.

As stated in the ruling of Palisades Collection, L.L.C. v. Graubard, No. L-3394-06, 2009 WL 1025176 (N.J. Super. A.D. April 17, 2009),

[I]t is entirely possible for a party in litigation to alter a Wikipedia article, print the "article and thereafter offer it in support of any given position," an appeals court held. "Such a malleable source of information is inherently unreliable and clearly not one 'whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned," such as would support judicial notice under New Jersey Evidence Rule 201(b)(3).

Read more about this at:
Wikipedia Too Malleable to Be Reliable Evidence
Jersey Court Rejects Wikipedia Evidence
Wikipedia is not reliable?
The Whacking of Wikipedia, 123
Wikipedia Too Malleable...