In contrast to traditional encyclopaedias
which are edited by professionals and whose articles are
contributed by academics and experts and then checked for accuracy,
Wikipedia is created by any internet user with no guarantees for
accuracy.
It is a notoriously unreliable source of
information for that reason, and the degree to which the US
judiciary has relied on it will shock many observers. Even circuit
courts of appeal, which are only one step below the Supreme Court,
have cited Wikipedia as an information source.
"Wikipedia is a terrific resource,” Judge
Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit in Chicago told the New York Times. “Partly because
it so convenient, it often has been updated recently and is very
accurate.”
Posner did concede that the source is not
always the appropriate one to use, though. “It wouldn’t be right to
use it in a critical issue. If the safety of a product is at issue,
you wouldn’t look it up in Wikipedia," he said.
Some courts have used the source, with its
youth culture associations, to explain germane elements of youth
culture that no traditional encyclopaedia would even explain. An
Iowa court used it to explain that 'jungle juice' refers to
alcoholic drinks consumed purely to get drunk. A Florida court used
it to discover that 'booty music' had a high tempo and sexually
explicit lyrics.
Wikipedia was created as a free, open and
fast-changing alternative to traditional encyclopaedias and has not
only been itself a runaway success but has inspired a whole new
approach to research and information publishing and storage. The
wiki phenomenon has been embraced by the corporate as much as the
web and the open source worlds.
The site is now one of the world's top 20 by
visitors and had 38 million unique visitors in the US in
December.
