Online cult decides federal court case

Online cult decides federal court case

www.theregister.co.uk

Over at the Seventh US Court of Appeals in Chicago, a three-judge panel recently settled a long-standing legal battle by shamelessly citing an entry on Wikipedia. And as you might expect, the entry was edited after the case went to trial.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Review This Link: Instructions for the Breaking News Forums

* Copy the exact headline of the story into the headline field, don't make one up or sensationalize it. Submissions with inaccurate, biased or otherwise deceptive headlines may be moved, closed or deleted.

[edit on 2/16/2009 by semperfortis]

WTF? Anyone here knows Wikipedia can be edited at any time by anyone. What does it say when we're turning to articles that are edited all the time for court decisions? You know, TPTB could EASILY edit something on Wikia for their purposes and use that to win a trial. I mean, they use intimidation and all, but now they can use Wiki as a source for all the sheeple to think they're being honest.

www.theregister.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2/16/2009 by semperfortis]

reply to post by Darky6K


Actually that's not true, there is a very intense and systematic vetting process to any changes done on wiki. The changes may appear on the user's page after doing them, but they will go to mods for verification and then approval.

Nevertheless, Wiki isn't really a good source since the people who do edit it, are usually biast and or controlled by some corporate war machine of some kind.

Stupid decision, but ohh well, stupid penal system.

~Keeper

I am vary pro-wiki. Yes, anybody has a chance at changing what you read there. It's a vary good source of information. I wouldn't recommend looking up UFO's there or the JFK assassination but for everyday information
it can be great.

As for a definition which was used in this case it should be fine. I can't see why the lawyer wouldn't just use a dictionary definition but wiki would be ok. The only issue here would be if the lawyer them self changed the definition before the case (or somebody they knew).

Also to look deeper into this case we also have to think about how we define words. Sometimes when we use a word it start to grow away from the dictionary meaning. In this case wiki could be a vary valuable source of information. Everything is subject to change. Legal matters have always been by the books but at some point they have to progress. This could be good and bad for the people.

By the book, what about the influence of the politicians and their masters over the courts? I'm just saying if they start to use Wiki as a source, what else will be done with it?