If you have access, there's an interesting article in the INTA bulletin
(International Trademark Association) titled Using Wikipedia as a Source
of Evidence, August 15, 2007 Vol. 62, No. 15. We do strictly
intellectual property here, and after that article came out I sent yet
another reminder to the attorneys about Wikipedia's reliability or lack
thereof.
Donna M. Fisher
Law Librarian
Senniger Powers
1 Metropolitan Square Suite 1600
St. Louis MO 63102
314-231-5400
________________________________
From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On
Behalf Of Marie Erickson
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 12:35 PM
To: Ryan, Robert S.; Scott Burgh; law lib; CALL
Subject: RE: Wikipedia and authority - Appellate cites
I give an Internet assignment to my paralegal students, which reuqires
them to research breed-specific legislation, distinguish reliable cites
from others, and come up with a short paper about why it's bad to ban
pit bulls. They're supposed to check ordinances on municode.com and
find reliable websites about the dogs and organizations which prefer
dangerous-dog ordinances to breed-specific ones.
We have a general discussion of how to tell if a website is reliable.
Last spring one of my students cited the pit bull entry on Wikipedia.
The article wasn't bad, but some wit had substituted a picture of the
breed with one of a Libertarian Party candidate for some council seat in
California. A very severe woman in a suit. Not nice.
But a good example of why Wikipedia is not reliable.
Marie Erickson, MLS/JD
Head of Public Services
Law Library of Louisiana
400 Royal St., 2nd floor
New Orleans, LA 70130-2104
504 310-2515
800 820-3038 (Louisiana only)
merickson@lasc.org
________________________________
From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On
Behalf Of Ryan, Robert S.
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 11:47 AM
To: Scott Burgh; law lib; CALL
Subject: RE: Wikipedia and authority - Appellate cites
There are at least 2 published California appellate decisions and
several unpublished which cite Wikipedia.
Bob Ryan
(I'm back. New Jersey to California. Rte. 80. America is lovely when
seen from a 16 foot truck.)
Hill Farrer & Burrill
Los Angeles
________________________________
From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On
Behalf Of Scott Burgh
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 8:52 AM
To: law lib; CALL
Subject: Wikipedia and authority
Greetings:
With the internet, I often raise the issue to the patrons of where does
the authority of the information lie regarding issues such as
credibility, currency, and reliability. While I love Wikipedia as a
starting point, the article link here shows that a hacker's program has
pinpointed origins of Wikipedia edits to indicate that alterations to
the popular online encyclopedia have come from the CIA and the Vatican,
as well as from politicians making their entries more flattering.
Check out the story from the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Technology/CIA-and-Vatican-edit-Wikipedia-ent
ries/2007/08/18/1186857828993.html
Thank you.
Scott Burgh
Chief Law Librarian
City of Chicago Department of Law Library
===================================
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
that
any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments)
is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of
(a) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (b)
promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed in this
communication."
===================================
The information contained in this electronic mail message is
confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above,
and may be privileged. The information herein may also be protected by
the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
immediately notify us by telephone (213-620-0460), and delete the
original
message. Thank you.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
This email and any files transmitted herewith are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of
the message. This disclaimer also confirms that this email message has
been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be
the views of the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:47:00 PST