Politics | September 03, 2008 | 14 comments

Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia

Image
buttcrack



References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.

The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.

The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080902-appeals-court-smacks-down-judge-fo...
  1. groups:
    Politics,   Culture,   Law
  2. tags:
    Politics,  Culture,  Current TV,  Internet,  3 more
  3.     
    |

14 comments // Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia

  • gtasahomo
  • darkhorsejim
    • 0
      darkhorsejim  

    • I know how handy Wiki can be when you need to check out a variety topics for self-educating purposes. It's so user friendly that you can instantly edit info if you're so inclined-adding, subtracting or changing text, graphs, pictures, etc.

      However, when our country's judicial system is acting in accordance with ratified legislation & governing or regulatory agency's policies need to be implemented to hand down a decision or make a ruling, the binding legal source supercedes any other-period. No matter how fair or unfair the results may seem, this is America, where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty based on a system of case law & precedence.

      Compared to most of the world’s judicial systems, you still can’t beat the good ol’ US of As, especially when you’re at the mercy of another country’s judicial system, where you start at the U.S. embassy in order to begin your navigation through a labyrinthine & unfamiliar system that may or may not have bail or where you’re presumed guilty & must prove your innocence. Our prisons our considered to be more like hotels when compared to some of the world’s squalid conditions of incarceration.

      We have lost too much credibility in the eyes of the world over the last 8 years & are now looked down upon when it comes to how we detain foreigners instead of being a haven & bastion of justice anymore. Maybe the next administration can make the necessary changes to restore our once great heritage when it comes to safeguarding persecuted individuals from around the world & hopefully, once again, America can be looked at as setting a high benchmark of human rights. But until then, she must go.

    • 3 years ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  

    • Well there are different standards in legal definitions so I doubt that Wiki would be the place for them since they depend on precedents and rigid terms.

    • 3 years ago
  • LindseyIndigo
    • 0
      LindseyIndigo  
    • Image

    • What's been happening with Sarah Palin's wiki page is probably a good example of why wikipedia can't be trusted like a proper, old-school encyclopaedia...

    • 3 years ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • LindseyIndigo:

      The reason those things never work even with all the hype about people trying to rewrite the facts is that they are always caught at it very quickly.

      For example the Sarah Palin entry you mentioned a lot of the "glowing remarks" you mentioned have been disputed and also a lot of the rumors added about Bristol's pregnancy. It also has this put on it

      "This page is currently protected from editing until September 8, 2008 or until disputes have been resolved. This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected."

      So the widespread reports of "Wikiality" are more exaggerations than facts since what can be edited with malice can be redited again to be correct in short order.

    • 3 years ago
  • huntre
    • 0
      huntre  

    • The problem here is that the source can change almost as quickly as read. That makes it being used as factual based information questionable at the very least.

    • 3 years ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • huntre:

      That's is a strength also since it can be updated and reviewed more quickly.

      Any errors can be eliminated since as when you look at the discussion page for any entry the people that add or edit have to defend the information and cite the sources.

    • 3 years ago
  • TheBox193
    • 0
      TheBox193  

    • I don't really see what is wrong with wikipedia. How is it different from an encyclopedia such as Britannica or Encarta? They too are edited by people, and if anything those two are more bias than wikipedia which is edited my millions of users.

    • 3 years ago
  • maxamust
  • intelligenceisacurse
    • 0
      intelligenceisacurse  
    • TheBox193:

      PhDs are not the end all buddy.

      What a PhD learned in school 10 years ago is not even
      relevant in many fields.

      I do not want some PhD with a 30 year old degree writing
      an encyclopedia I trust for current information.

    • 3 years ago
  • SDLN
    • 0
      SDLN  
    • TheBox193:

      Encyclopedia entries are written by accomplished experts in the field of the particular entry, often times academic types (but not always) who have continuously worked and studied in that field for a considerable amount of time. Wikipedia, on the other hand... well, their tag line is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." And anyone does. (Google "What's wrong with Wikipedia", in quotes, and you'll find plenty of testimonials.)

      So it really comes down who is a more authoritative source based on the authors of the entries. Wikipedia is great for casual reading, or entry-level self-education. Wikipedia cites other encyclopedias, so the information isn't always that different. And one benefit of Wikipedia's openness is that its entries are usually more up-to-date than traditional encyclopedias (the reliability of the updates, however, vary).

      But for highbrow academic or professional purposes, the unreliable nature of Wikipedia's information is a risk not worth taking. The stakes are too high. Losing an account or a scholarship or something because some jakanapes wanted to make a funny online would be a hard pill to swallow.

    • 3 years ago
  • Bren589
  • intelligenceisacurse
    • 0
      intelligenceisacurse  
    • Bren589:

      whatever, that is her business.

      america is not the salvation of the world.
      we cannot even properly care for our own people.

      if someone is born in a country you think is less well off,
      then they should just come to america?

      is that it?

      do you even know what is happening in Africa right now?
      the middle east?

      touchy subject, I know.
      but think, we are separate contries, this world, for a reason.
      just because you live in america....

    • 3 years ago
  • FallenMorgan
more from Politics:
from the community

top videos