I assume everyone has read an opinion or order and wondered, "where did that come from?" For example, Judge Ed Carnes has quoted Bob Dyan on occasion, see, e.g., Wright v. Farouk Sys., Inc., 701 F.3d 907, 908 (11th Cir. 2012)(quoting "Not Dark Yet"), and Judge Rosenbaum has referred to a classic Star Trek scene. See McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1158 (11th Cir. 2017)(Rosenbaum, J., dissenting, unfortunately)(referencing the Kobayashi Maru). While some decry the use of pop culture references in judicial opinions, I enjoy them for the most part. And in my opinion, Judge Zloch wins this competition by using a line from Hilary Mantel's great novel "Bring Up The Bodies" in the context of a lawyer's ethical obligation not to present perjured testimony: “We are lawyers. We want the truth little by little and only those parts of it we can use.”
But a recent Washington Post article provides empirical evidence of a very alarming trend in judicial opinion writing. A new paper from MIT and Maynooth University in Ireland finds that judges there routinely rely on Wikipedia articles not just for background information but for core legal reasoning and specific language they use in their decisions. In our country, the New York Times identified this trend years ago.
What? Yes, I know that once in a while, you get shown the light in the strangest of places, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information about legal analysis. As a user-generated source, an entry can be edited by anyone at any time and may be a work in progress, simply incorrect, or an act of vandalism.
We should be better. Many colleges and universities, as well as public and private secondary schools, have policies that prohibit students from using Wikipedia as their source for doing research papers, essays, or equivalent assignments. Perhaps The Judicial Conference of the United States should do the same for judges. After all, judicial opinions and orders are not 4th-grade book reports.
What? Yes, I know that once in a while, you get shown the light in the strangest of places, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information about legal analysis. As a user-generated source, an entry can be edited by anyone at any time and may be a work in progress, simply incorrect, or an act of vandalism.
We should be better. Many colleges and universities, as well as public and private secondary schools, have policies that prohibit students from using Wikipedia as their source for doing research papers, essays, or equivalent assignments. Perhaps The Judicial Conference of the United States should do the same for judges. After all, judicial opinions and orders are not 4th-grade book reports.
Here's another great quote from BUTB: “Truth can break the gates down, truth can howl in the street; unless truth is pleasing, personable and easy to like, she is condemned to stay whimpering at the back door.”
ReplyDeleteTotally agree. Wikipedia has no place in legal filings and certainly not in judicial opinions!
ReplyDeleteThe post title is "You Get What You Pay For." I'm not making the connection between that and the content.
ReplyDeleteThat's what you get when the judges are selected from the Fraudulent Society.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia is free. It is worth what you have paid for it. Fuck.
ReplyDelete9:27 thanks for paying attention.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is free, too. :)
ReplyDeleteSo are public defenders for the most part
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, here's Richard Posner's take, from WAPO: "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 'wouldn't be right to use it in a critical issue.'"
ReplyDeletePosner's comment reminds me of the old "minor surgery" joke. The only minor surgery is someone else's. I wouldn't want a judge to determine what is or is not a critical issue worthy of relying on Wikipedia. It's not that hard to look to original sources. But maybe you'd want to use wiki if you were a judge, teaching at Chicago, going around making speeches, and writing a book every year.
ReplyDelete