Comments on: Wikipedia as Evidence

By: Omar Ha-Redeye

Omar Ha-Redeye — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:24:48 +0000

B, some of this information is already available on Wikipedia’s Page History for each entry, though viewing stats may be useful. I agree with Wendy that the average person on the street isn’t a contributor yet, but it is moving in that direction. Of greater concern would be that Wikipedia content would be highly reflective of Internet usage patterns worldwide, reflecting inherent cultural and socio-economic biases. But as a legal tool, these biases and perceptions are exactly what a court might be trying to get to.

By: B.

B. — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:51:32 +0000

Whether or not a particular Wikipedia reflects any consensus on anything is, of course, something that varies (and enormously) from article to article.

That does, though, suggest that a useful add to the Wikipedia interface would be a stat, at the bottom of each page, showing:

(1) how many unique users/anonymous IPs had viewed a particular page in the last month; and

(2) how many unique users/anonymous IPs had edited a particular page since it was created on such-and-such a date.

By: John G

John G — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:24:30 +0000

The problem is that anyone can go in and make a Wikipedia article say what he or she wants it to say – at least for a while. Wikipedia has editorial guidelines against self-promotion and in favour of importance – not just anything justifies an article. But those guidelines are not necessarily enforced in a timely or consistent way. So the risk of self-serving evidence is very high, probably too high to support admissibility at least on facts critical to a particular lawsuit.

By: Wendy Reynolds

Wendy Reynolds — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:24:38 +0000

I don't think we've quite gotten to the point were the average person on the street is a Wikipedia *contributor*.

By: Lawrence Gridin

Lawrence Gridin — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:53:54 +0000

As Omar pointed out, you can take judicial notice of something when it is a "notorious fact." Like Omar says, if there is a large enough body of people that are aware of some fact, then that fact is "notorious" and the judge can properly take judicial notice of it.

Whether a Wikipedia article is proof that a lot of people believe a particular fact to be true is another question….

By: Omar Ha-Redeye

Omar Ha-Redeye — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:43:48 +0000

I do agree that truth is not determined by popular opinion.

But Wikipedia does have a number of controls, like tags indicating that the neutrality of an article is disputed, or encouraging different views on a subject.

The purpose of tendering the evidence would not necessarily be proof of an issue, but rather the common held beliefs and public opinion on it. I cannot think of a better way to determine this if the controls mentioned and greater global participation occurs in the future.

By: Wendy Reynolds

Wendy Reynolds — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:10:23 +0000

Just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it correct. Where opinion is what you're trying to measure, Wikipedia is a good place to start, perhaps. But if the vast majority of Wikipedia writers believe the world is flat…

By: Omar Ha-Redeye

Omar Ha-Redeye — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:51:34 +0000

Mitch Kowalski picked up on this article over at the Legal Post. What do all of you think - is Wikipedia like your Aunt Mildred, or can it be a sign of public consensus?