In my case against Ben Mezrich, Judge Collings cited WikiAnswers (wiki.answers.com) to define the term non-fiction. Except that he cited a page on WikiAnswers that was off by one character from the page he intended to cite. I didn't know this, and assumed he'd just made everything up, since nothing matched what he quoted. It took me over a year--after appealing based in part on his error--to accidentally realize that the link was bad.
He still refuses to admit that he made any sort of mistake.
I filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which you can find here:
Other judges refuse to cite wiki citations at all. When I brought the issue to the attention of the First Circuit as misconduct, they dismissed it, carefully refusing to use the word "wiki" in their public Orders because that might admit that judges cite wikis whenever they feel like it. I appealed; they refused to use "wiki" in the Order once again. Instead, they refer to an "on-line source."
Wiki citations can be edited by anyone, including adverse parties, during or after proceedings, presenting the exact same problem as silent edits in opinions after they have already been issued. Whenever there is a better source they should never be cited. The behavior of Judge Collings, the First Circuit, and the Supreme Court does not inspire much confidence in the Courts.
I'd have to agree that randomly finding something on the Internet proves little. However, for a definition of a term like "non-fiction," you're not necessarily looking for an authority, but rather just something that makes sense. (Even if you found a definition in Webster's, it carries no legal weight at all. Nor does WikiAnswers.)
Your concern about changes seems valid. Maybe this could be solved by actually copying the original cited material so the original could be viewed later by interested parties? I'd hate to make the entire Internet off-limits to legal authorities just because of the potential for change.
The OED is pretty widely regarded as an authority when it comes to defining terms. It doesn't tend to change very much over time for any given term, which is important, in contrast to a wiki.
In my particular case, the wiki had three different definitions for "non-fiction" all written by different anonymous authors, all of which change frequently. perma.cc is a project to image hyperlink citations, but it doesn't stop judges from just screwing up.
Comments
In my case against Ben Mezrich, Judge Collings cited WikiAnswers (wiki.answers.com) to define the term non-fiction. Except that he cited a page on WikiAnswers that was off by one character from the page he intended to cite. I didn't know this, and assumed he'd just made everything up, since nothing matched what he quoted. It took me over a year--after appealing based in part on his error--to accidentally realize that the link was bad.
He still refuses to admit that he made any sort of mistake.
I filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which you can find here:
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=34312001&z...
Other judges refuse to cite wiki citations at all. When I brought the issue to the attention of the First Circuit as misconduct, they dismissed it, carefully refusing to use the word "wiki" in their public Orders because that might admit that judges cite wikis whenever they feel like it. I appealed; they refused to use "wiki" in the Order once again. Instead, they refer to an "on-line source."
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/01-13-90016.O.pd... http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/01-13-90016.J.pd...
Wiki citations can be edited by anyone, including adverse parties, during or after proceedings, presenting the exact same problem as silent edits in opinions after they have already been issued. Whenever there is a better source they should never be cited. The behavior of Judge Collings, the First Circuit, and the Supreme Court does not inspire much confidence in the Courts.
I'd have to agree that randomly finding something on the Internet proves little. However, for a definition of a term like "non-fiction," you're not necessarily looking for an authority, but rather just something that makes sense. (Even if you found a definition in Webster's, it carries no legal weight at all. Nor does WikiAnswers.)
Your concern about changes seems valid. Maybe this could be solved by actually copying the original cited material so the original could be viewed later by interested parties? I'd hate to make the entire Internet off-limits to legal authorities just because of the potential for change.
The OED is pretty widely regarded as an authority when it comes to defining terms. It doesn't tend to change very much over time for any given term, which is important, in contrast to a wiki.
In my particular case, the wiki had three different definitions for "non-fiction" all written by different anonymous authors, all of which change frequently. perma.cc is a project to image hyperlink citations, but it doesn't stop judges from just screwing up.