Mediaboss Marketing

RSS Top headlines | Lewiston/Auburn | Franklin | Oxford Hills | River Valley | Sports | Entertainment | Obituaries News Lewiston/Auburn | Franklin | Oxford Hills | River Valley | New England | State | Politics | National | Business | Matter of Record | Submit a news tip | Archive search Lifestyle Encore | Mark LaFlamme | b Section | Sun Spots | Dr Donohue | Dear Abby | Horoscopes | Ask Sun Spots | Submit your event | Archive search Sports Local | Community | National | Contact sports | Archive search Opinion Our View | Letters to the Editor | Guest Columnists | Sunday Perspective | Write a letter to the editor Community Obituaries | Funeral Notices | Connections | Weddings, Engagements, Anniversaries | Well Done | Matters of record | Submit a connections item | Submit an obituary Multimedia Video | Photo Galleries Services Subscribe to the Sun Journal | E-Edition | Manage your newspaper delivery account | Manage your online commenting account | Order photos | Place a classified ad | Send us a press release | Write a letter to the editor | Send us a wedding announcement | Archive search Advertising Search classifieds | Jobs | Real Estate | Public Notices | Special Sections | Special Sections calendar | Advertise with us | Contact advertising

Read more here:
Arts + Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon scheded for Saturday at UMF - Lewiston Sun Journal

FACEBOOK/Anne Redford

After my article (Is Sen. Alan Cayetano a PH Citizen?) appeared last week, my Facebook page was immediately besieged by the social media trolls of Sen. Cayetano who labeled my article FAKE NEWS and who went to great pains to disparage and discredit Wikipedia, which for todays online users is what the Encyclopedia Britannica was to researchers in the pre-Internet past.

In his response, Sen. Cayetano personally declared my opinion article to be ahatchet job, defamation and fake news which he claimed got so many things in the article wrong.

What exactly did my article get wrong?

Sen. Cayetanos first correction was: To answer your headline: No I am not an American Citizen; I never chose to be an American Citizen.

Wrong. The headline asked if he was a Philippine citizen, not if he was an American citizen.

It is also a lie that he never chose to be an American citizen. In his Comelec protest action against Cayetano, former Pateros Mayor Jose Capco, Jr, produced documentation from official government records showing that on January 23, 1985, Alan Peter Cayetano personally applied for and obtained an Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) asserting that he was an American citizen. As Atty. Capco pointed out, the law required Cayetano to personally apply for this ACR and he dutifully complied.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQo0V_n9agA

SCREENSHOT

What I quoted in my article was Wikipedias report that Alan Peter Cayetano renounced his US citizenship to stand for election to the Philippine House of Representatives in the 1998 elections, and to gain admission to the Philippine Bar that same month.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_United_States_citizens_who_relinquished_their_nationality

In his response, Sen. Cayetano confirmed the essential facts provided by Wikipedia: But even without any legal obligation nor necessity, I gave up my American Citizenship because even before I took the Philippine Bar or ran for Congress, I knew I wanted to serve the Filipino People and knew I could only best do that by having no questions to my allegiance.

Sen. Cayetano was elected to the Philippine Congress in May of 1998 and became a member of the Philippine bar that same year. So he claims he gave up his US citizenship before May 1998.

But according to the Federal Register of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-04-22/html/99-10022.htm), Sen. Cayetanos name appears on the list of individuals losing United States citizenship (within the meaning of section 877(a)) with respect to whom the Secretary received information during the quarter ending March 31, 1999.

Was Sen. Cayetano still officially a US citizen when he ran for the Philippine Congress in 1998 and when he was admitted to the Philippine bar that same year?

While Sen. Cayetano openly acknowledges that he gave up his US citizenship only in either 1998 or 1999, the fact remains that when he ran for and won a seat as a Taguig City Councilor in 1991 and as Taguig City Vice Mayor in 1995, he was still a US citizen, by his own admission.

This is a significant issue for former Mayor Rommel Arnado who reacquired his status as a Philippine citizen in July 2008 and then renounced his American citizenship in April 2009 before running for mayor of his hometown of Kauswagan, Lanao in 2010. After winning the 2010 election, Arnado won reelection by a landslide in 2013.

After evidence was presented that Mayor Arnado used his US passport after he had renounced his US citizenship, the Comelec disqualified him, which Arnado appealed. In an 8-4 vote on August 18, 2015, the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the Comelecs disqualification of Arnado in a decision that has now become part of the body of jurisprudence on the question of the qualification of candidates who once held foreign citizenship (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/723478/sc-ousts-american-mayor-of-lanao-town).

SCREENSHOT

Only natural-born Filipinos who owe total and undivided allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines could run for and hold elective public office, read the Supreme Court decision.

In his defense, Sen. Cayetano cited the Comelecs decision in Capcos disqualification case against him. On April 19, 2007, Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos told reporters that the Comelec had junked Capcos disqualification case against Cayetano, finding that Cayetano is natural-born Filipino citizen because he was born in the Philippines with a Filipino father and an American mother.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/41450/news/nation/comelec-rules-with-finality-that-cayetano-is-filipino

Is Sen. Cayetano a natural born Filipino citizen?

The provision on Philippine citizenship is found in Article IV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Section 1 states the following are citizens of the Philippines including:

[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

If we accept a sexist interpretation of the law that this provision applies only to those with Filipino mothers and not those with Filipino fathers like Sen. Cayetano, then that would be his defense.

But if the law is gender-neutral and does not discriminate between Filipino mothers and fathers, then this section would apply to Sen. Cayetano who was born in 1970 and who elected US citizenship in 1985 when he applied for and obtained his Alien Certificate of Registration as a US citizen.

Article IV Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that: Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

Sen. Cayetano did not elect Philippine citizenship in 1985 when he obtained his ACR as a US citizen. The Comelecs 2007 decision is useless because Chairman Abalos was satisfied to just examine Cayetanos birth certificate to rule with finality that Cayetano is a natural born Filipino citizen.

There are dozens of Filipino Americans in San Francisco who have applied for a Philippine passport based on the fact that they were born in the Philippines of an American father and a Filipino mother but who left the Philippines with a US passport before they reached 21. Their applications for dual citizenship were denied by the Philippine Consulate because they were deemed not to have elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority

Cayetano and Duterte. FACEBOOK/Alan Cayetano

In his response to my opinion piece, Sen. Cayetano presents himself as a poor victim who has been unfairly picked on even though, he declares, I have dedicated my life, risked my life and sacrificed much for the Philippines. It is my duty and honor to do so.

Sometimes, when someone is so full of himself, it is tempting to ask exactly how he risked his life and how much he sacrificed for his country.

In one TV interview shown on The Filipino Channel (TFC) a few years ago, I recall watching Sen. Cayetano proudly show off his prized collection of Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant collectibles. If someone offered him $200,000 for them, he would likely reject the offer as way below their fair market value. After all, he sacrificed so much time collecting them that it just would be too much to ask him to part with them.

Perhaps Sen. Cayetano can also explain how much he risked his life to contribute P71.3 million pesos ($1.42 M) to the 2016 presidential campaign of Rodrigo Duterte, which is three times higher than his P23.6 million declared net worth in 2015. (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism report 12/08/2016).

http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/12/08/16/cayetano-donations-to-duterte-campaign-higher-than-2015-net-worth

Sen. Cayetano also pointed out that the basic principle of both journalism and due process is to give the accused a chance to answer. I am certain that the 8,000+ victims of the extrajudicial killings of the Duterte government he supports would have welcomed due process and the chance to answer the charge of being drug addicts before being sentenced to death.

Sen. Cayetano attacked the INQUIRER for presenting One sided news with malicious views. But this is not fair to the INQUIRER because the day after my article appeared, another INQUIRER columnist, Oscar Franklin Tan, wrote his opinion on the matter (Yasay and Cayetano citizenship different) stating that the law I cited did not exist.

Let us be clear that the basic facts I presented in my commentary are not in dispute. By his own admission, Sen. Cayetano was a US citizen from birth until he relinquished his US citizenship in either 1998 or 1999. Except for the precise date when Cayetano officially relinquished his US citizenship, the essential facts are not disputed. It is the legal interpretation of the law that Oscar Franklin Tan questions.

This deserves a serious discussion. If I am wrong, then dozens of Filipino Americans in San Francisco, and perhaps thousands all over the world, deserve to have their applications for dual citizenship approved because there is no legal requirement that dual citizens must elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority to be considered natural born Filipinos as Article IV of the Philippine Constitution requires.

If I am right, then Sen. Cayetano should immediately resign his post.

Below is Sen. Cayetanos unedited response to my article as published in his Facebook page:

Balanced News, Fearless Views or One-Sided News, Malicious Views!

Thank You, Inquirer.net, for a well disguised malicious article.

First of all, the basic principle of both journalism and due process is to give the accused a chance to answer.

Because you neither called me nor asked anyone in my office or just because this was simply a hatchet job -you got so many things in the article wrong.

To answer your headline:

No I am not an American Citizen; I never chose to be an American Citizen.

I am a Filipino and my only nationality is Filipino.

It is NOT true that it is not known what happened with the case filed by former Mayor Capco. A simple check with the Comelec would show that Comelec decided, with finality, that I am a Natural Born Filipino and qualified to run for and hold public office.

The ruling stated that consistent with the Constitution and jurisprudence from the Supreme Court 1) Unlike the other cases you mentioned in the malicious article, my case is different (basic law states that different facts lead to a different conclusion) that I was born a dual Citizen having an American mother and a Filipino father; and (2) that one may be a Natural Born citizen of both countries.

But even without any legal obligation nor necessity, I gave up my American Citizenship because even before I took the Philippine Bar or ran for Congress, I knew I wanted to serve the Filipino People and knew I could only best do that by having no questions to my allegiance the Philippine Constitution allows dual citizenship but detests dual allegiance; that is why we also passed a dual citizenship law for Filipinos living abroad.

I am not stateless because unlike others who were Filipino then gave up Filipino citizenship for foreign citizenship therefore losing their Filipino citizenship, I always had both, BUT gave up the foreign citizenship. Again, I never chose to be a U.S. Citizen; the reverse is true I renounced it.

Your research dug up an old case and even a video but you couldnt send me a text or an email, or give me a call to refute your allegations, or you couldnt even get the result of the Comelec case.

Like many Filipinos, I love the Philippines and love America and its people, but my allegiance and loyalty is and will always be with the Philippines and the Filipino people.

I have dedicated my life, risked my life and sacrificed much for the Philippines. It is my duty and honor to do so.

In the process, I have argued and have gone head on against some of the most powerful people in the country.

At this stage of my public service, I have fully supported President Dutertes quadruple war on poverty, crime, drugs and corruption. I have also fully supported his independent foreign policy, thus getting the ire of some in the U.S., ABS CBN, some in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and some in Rappler, some human rights advocates, and of course, the anti-Duterte forces.

That is a small price for me to pay for supporting the President and building a nation.

How about you, Inquirer? Your slogan is balanced news, fearless views?

At what price did you give that up? One sided news with malicious views

Let me challenge you. If Im not Filipino, if Im still a U.S. citizen or stateless, Ill resign, not run for or accept appointment to public office. But if I am Filipino, you close down your newspaper. Or at least learn to get the other side before you publish!

May GOD Bless you despite our differences.

May GOD Bless The Philippines!

(Send comments to Rodislawyer@gmail.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127.)

Link:
Sen. Cayetano confirms Wikipedia report - Inquirer.net

Amanda Spadaro

NARROWSBURG - Despite what academics say about Wikipedia, its often the first place people look.

Thats why its crucial for women artists to be equally represented on the site, according to Bizzy Coy, program director at the Delaware Valley Arts Alliance.

On Saturday, the alliance hosted an Edit-a-thon, an event for people to add profiles of women artists to the website. The international Edit-a-thon movement began in 2014 by the Art+Feminism organization.

The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia, found that only 10 percent of the contributors to the site are women.

This gender imbalance can lead to a natural disparity in women who are profiled, Coy explained.

In addition, society tends to value and recognize mens accomplishments more than womens, Coy said.

In many situations, men are hired or promoted based on their potential, and women are only celebrated based on proof that theyve accomplished something, she said.

On Saturday, women and local artists learned how to contribute to the collaborative encyclopedia. The hope is that the crowdsourced site will become more balanced between the sexes, said Christine Ahern, the event coordinator.

While anyone can change an article, Wikipedia editors can remove misinformation and reject articles if they do not provide factual, neutral and verifiable information, Ahern said.

For NYC artist Daria Dorosh, older women need to help share their knowledge of female art before that history is gone, she said. Dorosh is one of the founders of Brooklyns A.I.R. Gallery, devoted to supporting women artists.

The irony is older women are the ones who dont know how to do this, she said of editing Wikipedia. But theyre the ones with so much history.

Dorosh plans to use her knowledge of Wikipedia to share with other artists and members at A.I.R., she said.

Saturdays event was the second annual Edit-a-thon hosted by the arts alliance. As the movement continues on six continents, Coy said the event plans to continue for years to come.

aspadaro@th-record.com

Originally posted here:
Delaware Valley Arts Alliance emphasizing ... - recordonline.com - Times Herald-Record

Portland artist Taryn Tomasello and Roya Amirsoleymani, PICA's directory of community engagement, learn how to edit and create Wikipediaentries.

MollySolomon/OPB

On the third floor of the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art, or PICA, a group of men and women are huddled around a table, buried in theirlaptops.

Theyre part of a massive editing session to create more diverse voices and content on Wikipedia, with a focus on womenartists.

A study by the Wikipedia Foundation found fewer than 10 percent of site editors on the open-source website werefemale.

Roya Amirsoleymani, PICAs director of community engagement, believes that disparity is apparent in Wikipediacontent.

When you have the case of predominantly white males behind Wikipedia, then what you have is a skewed representation and perception of whats important, whats represented and whos represented, shesaid.

Garrick Imatani, Emma Colburn and Linden How at Portland's Art+Feminism Wikipediaedit-a-thon.

MollySolomon/OPB

Saturdays event was part of a larger campaign called Art+Feminism. The organization hosted its first Wikipedia edit-a-thon in New York in 2014. The Portland event is one of more than 50 across the globe thisyear.

I see things that are wrong, especially if its a topic that Ive done a lot of work on, said Portland State University film professor KristinHole.

Hole attended Saturdays edit-a-thon and related to the lack of female artists on Wikipedia. She has often looked up an actor or film that shes curious about, only to find that a Wikipedia page doesntexist.

I think it makes things seem almost like they dont matter or definitely like theyre less significant, Holesaid.

Others took issue with the way females in the art world were described. Portland artist Taryn Tomasello points to Jackson Pollocks page as an example. It references Lee Krasner also a famous artist but only as Pollockswife.

Whereas, Lee Krasners page references Jackson Pollock and has this very long entry about him and his art practice, Tomasello said. So the way that they are written about is totallydifferent.

Weve definitely been hearing for years about a content gap in womens coverage, said Jason Moore, a Wikipedia editor who led a workshop Saturday to teach basic coding and editingskills.

Moore has been editing pages daily for the past 10 years and estimates that hes assisted in more than 200,000 Wikipedia articles. Moore, himself a white male, knows theres room forimprovement.

People really trust that when they go to Wikipedia, theyre going to find information about what theyre looking for and its going to be reliable information, Moore said. But if theres gaps, thats where we have work to stilldo.

A second Portland Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon will take place Saturday, April 29 at the Pacific Northwest College of Art Library from 11 a.m. to 4p.m.

See the original post:
Portland Edit-A-Thon Aims To Close Wikipedia Gender Gap . News ... - OPB News

In D Magazine Partners v. Rosenthal, someone described as a welfare queen in a magazine article sued the magazine for libel. One question was what the phrase welfare queen meant, and the Texas Court of Appeals resolved this by referring to, among other sources, Wikipedia. In FridaysTexas Supreme Court decision in the case, Justice Debra H. Lehrmanns majority opinion considered whether this reliance was proper:

Citing Wikipedia, along with additional sources cited in the Wikipedia article, the court [of appeals] stated:

The term Welfare Queen has two meanings; it can mean either (1) a woman who has defrauded the welfare system by using false information to obtain benefits to which she is not legally entitled, and it can also mean (2) a woman who has exploited the welfare system by having children out of wedlock and avoiding marital relationships for the purpose of continuing to qualify legally for government benefits.

The court explained that the second definition does not apply to Rosenthal and that the articles title therefore necessarily references a woman who is committing fraud to receive government-assistance benefits illegally.

Wikipedia is a self-described online open-content collaborative encyclopedia. This means that, except in certain cases to prevent disruption or vandalism, anyone can write and make changes to Wikipedia pages. Volunteer editors can submit content as registered members or anonymously. Each time an editor modifies content, the editors identity or IP address and a summary of the modification, including a time stamp, become available on the articles history tab. Wikipedia is one of the largest reference websites in the world, with over 70,000 active contributors working on more than 41,000,000 articles in 294 languages.

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. 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. While there has been extensive research on Wikipedias 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.

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. Cass Sunstein, legal scholar and professor at Harvard Law School, also warns that judges use of Wikipedia might introduce opportunistic editing. 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.

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. However, Judge Posner also noted that it wouldnt be right to use it in a critical issue. Other scholars agree that Wikipedia is most appropriate for soft facts, when courts want to provide context to help make their opinions more readable. 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. They also argue that open-source tools like Wikipedia may be useful when courts are trying to determine public perception or community norms. 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.

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. Selectively using Wikipedia for minor points in an opinion is an economical use of judges and law clerks time. In this case, for example, the cited Wikipedia page itself cited past newspaper and magazine articles that had used the term welfare queen in various contexts and could help shed light on how a reasonable person could construe the term.

However, the court of appeals utilized Wikipedia as its primary source to ascribe a specific, narrow definition to a single term that the court found significantly influenced the articles gist. Essentially, the court used the Wikipedia definition as the lynchpin of its analysis on a critical issue. As a result, the court narrowly read the term welfare queen to necessarily implicate fraudulent or illegal conduct, while other sources connote a broader common meaning. See, e.g., Oxford Living Dictionaries, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/welfare_queen (broadly defining welfare queen as a woman perceived to be living in luxury on benefits obtained by exploiting or defrauding the welfare system); YourDictionary, http://www.yourdictionary.com/welfare-queen (broadly defining welfare queen as a woman collecting welfare, seen as doing so out of laziness, rather than genuine need). In addition, and independent of the Wikipedia concerns, the court of appeals overwhelming emphasis on a single term in determining the articles gist departed from our jurisprudential mandate to evaluate the publication as a whole rather than focus on individual statements.

Justice Eva M. Guzman concurred, in an opinion that began with this image, and a footnote reading Screenshot of unsaved edits to Welfare Queen, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W elfare_queen.

The opinion went on:

I write to emphasize the perils of relying on Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia as an authoritative source for any controverted, decisive, or critical issue. As a general proposition, I believe Wikipedia is not a sufficiently reliable source of information to serve as the leading authority on a case-determinative matter, particularly when the courts reliance is sua sponte without notice to the parties, as it was in this case.

Wikipedia has many strengths and benefits, but reliance on unverified, crowd-generated information to support judicial rulings is unwise. Mass-edited collaborative resources, like Wikipedia, are malleable by design, raising serious concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the information, the expertise and credentials of the contributors, and the potential for manipulation and bias. In an age when news about fake news has become commonplace, long-standing concerns about the validity of information obtained from consensus websites like Wikipedia are not merely the antiquated musings of luddites.

To the contrary, as current events punctuate with clarity, courts must remain vigilant in guarding against undue reliance on sources of dubious reliability. A collaborative encyclopedia that may be anonymously and continuously edited undoubtedly fits the bill.

Legal commentators may debate whether and to what extent courts could properly rely on online sources like Wikipedia, but the most damning indictment of Wikipedias authoritative force comes directly from Wikipedia:

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here.

Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed.

[A]ll information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever.

Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.

Indeed, Wikipedias radical openness means that any given article may be, at any given moment, in a bad state: for example, it could be in the middle of a large edit or it could have been recently vandalized. Even if expeditiously remediated, transient errors are not always obvious to the casual reader. As Wikipedia states more pointedly, Wikipedia is a wiki, which means that anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize. Thus, you probably shouldnt be citing Wikipedia.

Apart from these candid self-assessments, which no doubt apply with equal force to other online sources and encyclopedias, a more pernicious evil lurks opportunistic editing. Because [a]nyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles and can contribute anonymously, [or] under a pseudonym, reliance on Wikipedia as an authoritative source for judicial decision-making incentivizes self-interested manipulation. Case in point: a Utah court of appeals recently described how the Wikipedia definition of jet ski provided stronger support for one of the parties in a subsequent appeal than it had when considered by the court in the parties previous appeal. The court observed the difficulty of discerning whether the change was instigated by the courts prior opinion, perhaps at the instance of someone with a stake in the debate.

Still, some have argued Wikipedia is a good source for definitions of new slang terms, for popular culture references, and for jargon and lingo including computer and technology terms. Perhaps, but not necessarily. While Wikipedias openly editable model may be well suited to capturing nuances and subtle shifts in linguistic meaning, there is no assurance that any particular definition actually represents the commonly understood meaning of a term that may be central to a legal inquiry.

In truth, Wikipedias own policies disclaim the notion: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Whatever merit there may be to crowdsourcing the English language, Wikipedia simply lacks the necessary safeguards to prevent abuse and assure the level of certainty and validity typically required to sustain a judgment in a legal proceeding.

Take, for example, the Wikipedia entry for welfare queen, which was first created in November 2006 by the user Chalyres. Since the entry was first drafted, 239 edits have been made by 146 users. But there is no reliable way to determine whether these edits (1) deleted or added accurate information, (2) deleted or added false or biased information, (3) were made by individuals with expertise on the terms usage, or (4) were made by individuals actually representative of the community.

As a court, one of our chief functions is to act as an animated and authoritative dictionary. In that vein, we are routinely called upon to determine the common meaning of words and phrases in contracts, statutes, and other legal documents. Though we often consult dictionaries in discharging our duty, rarely, if ever, is one source alone sufficient to fulfill the task. To that end, I acknowledge that Wikipedia may be useful as a starting point for serious research, but it must never be considered an endpoint, at least in judicial proceedings.

Wikipedias valuable role in todays technological society cannot be denied. Our society benefits from the fast, free, and easily-accessible information it provides. A wealth of information is now available at the touch of a few key strokes, and a community of Wikipedia editors serves to increase the accuracy and truth of that information, promoting the public good through those efforts. However, in my view, Wikipedia properly serves the judiciary only as a compendium a source for sources and not as authority for any disputed, dispositive, or legally consequential matter.

Originally posted here:
When should courts rely on Wikipedia? - Washington Post