Generally, court decisions cite Wikipedia only for uncontroversial facts where it isn't really worth the trouble to locate a more traditional or "reliable" source. What makes this case unusual is that the judge who was citing Wikipedia didn't seek another source even after the majority challenged him -- probably because the citation and the cited fact were relatively peripheral to the opinion.
Newyorkbrad On 3/20/12, Techman224 <techman...@techman224.com> wrote: > Probably didn't read > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer and > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer > > Techman224 > > On 2012-03-20, at 6:28 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote: > >> http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02069.htm >> >> Wikipedia is cited in footnote 3 to dissenting opinion (see the very >> end of the decision). The majority opinion responds that "as of yet, >> Wikipedia is not recognized source material for serious >> jurisprudential analysis." >> >> (Caution: the facts of the case are unpleasant.) >> >> Newyorkbrad >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
