Filipino Gov't Loses Court Case Because It Relied On Wikipedia
from the but-was-the-info-accurate? dept
A few years back, we discussed whether or not it was appropriate for judges to cite Wikipedia, noting that some were against the idea. Now, Slashdot points us to a case over in the Philippines, where the Filipino government has lost a recent lawsuit, in large part due to relying on Wikipedia to counter claims, rather than bringing in an expert witness.However, what's odd, is that the judge in the case seems upset about the use of Wikipedia itself, with no specific attempt to determine if the citation was accurate or credible. It appears that the government was really using Wikipedia to call up the infamous psychologists' bible DSM-IV, in order to explore whether or not one of the participants in the case had a real personality disorder. While citing Wikipedia might not be the wisest of decisions, it still seems a bit harsh to dismiss it entirely because of the source, without any effort to determine if the content itself was legitimate.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: philippines, wikipedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wikipedia
lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Would a medical manual excerpt have been treated differently?
The judge seems more upset by the laziness of the OSG in failing to produce a real expert witness than by the particular source cited. If the OSG had done another whole 30 seconds of "research" online and had quoted a more authoritative source, I'm not sure the results would have been much better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As for dismissing because of the source, the source was discredited in big bold letters by their own disclaimer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
Because of this, anything on Wikipedia is and should be basically on the same level of "hearsay" as far as courts are concerned and dismissed out of hand.
It’s not the courts job to investigate if the content is legitimate, it’s the prosecuting/defending parties job to prove to the judge that it is and that disclaimer (even without knowledge of how Wikipedia works) makes that impossible.
Wikipedia can be a starting point for research/investigation but if you are going to use the information, dig deeper and go direct to the sources
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wikipedia is not a source
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In psychology, a lot of things are a matter of scale; Anyone remember the slashdot incident where every poster thought they had asperger's from the symptoms list?
In this case, i would think you would certainly need an expert witness to recognize which symptoms the patient actually displays to the extent intended by the DSM-IV
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"seeking to impeach the testimony of a defendant's expert"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Next...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's what expert witnesses are for, Mike. Without an expert witness all you have here is the Filipino government citing a website (which anyone can edit) which is in turn citing the DSM which is aimed at experts in psychology who interpret the text and apply it to specific cases as they see fit. Wikipedia is no substitute for an expert witness, and it's not even a primary source. The use of Wikipedia in a court of law is therefore entirely inappropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It doesn't matter who makes the claims, it's their evidence that matters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]