Monday, February 05, 2007

Wikipedia Redux: Don't Know What a Sliderule is For

My post on Wikipedia generated an interesting set of comments and an email from USC law professor Mary Dudziak, pointing me to her own entries (here, here and here ) on Legal History Blog. Dudziak notes that colleges and universities discourage undergrads from relying on Wikipedia and asks why judges can't be held to at least the same standard. That's a fair question, assuming that on any given subject there is a more reliable source than Wikipedia and assuming as well that a generalist judge and her law clerks can identify with confidence which book on, say, the history of firearms regulation in colonial America is by the well-regarded scholar and which book on that subject is by someone with an ideological axe to grind (on whatever side of the issue). To repeat what I should have made clearer in my earlier post, an objection to Wikipedia based on its unreliability is valid insofar as Wikipedia is (relatively) unreliable. But the way to investigate its reliability is by periodic empirical testing, not by a priori assumption. (I'm not attributing a priori reasoning to Dudziak, just considering a possible line of argument).

That said, even if it turned out that Wikipedia were, on average, as reliable as or more reliable than other sources upon which courts or even scholars routinely relied, there might nonetheless be valid reasons to discourage students from citing Wikipedia. The idea goes something like this: Students need to learn standards of evidence, how to work with original sources, etc., and Wikipedia is a short cut that will leave them unprepared or underprepared for making these sorts of judgments. Banning citations of Wikipedia by students, in this view, is a little like the practice of forbidding grade school children from using calculators for simple arithmetic until they have mastered the concepts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, because these are building blocks for other mathematical skills that cannot be performed on a calculator (or cannot be performed on a calculator without some serious thought about what functions one asks the calculator to perform).

That practice strikes me as sound, but it's hard to know whether and to what extent it should apply to Wikipedia. When calculators were first becoming available cheaply, some schools reacted by requiring mastery of not only manual arithmetic but also a sliderule as a prerequisite to using a calculator. Likewise, when I learned legal research as a first-year law student in 1987, we were forbidden from using Lexis and Westlaw--even for Shepardizing--until we had first mastered the laborious process of researching in hard copy compilations. Both of these requirements now seem quaint, not to say foolish. Neither the sliderule nor the book version of Shepard's was a building block of other concepts, and so, in retrospect, there was no good reason to require mastery of either in a world in which calculators and electronic databases were becoming ubiquitous. Whether that will be true of the materials for which Wikipedia substitutes remains to be seen. We can imagine a not-too-distant future in which just about every Wikipedia entry contains links to original source material courtesy of Google Books and other internet databases. In such a future, much of the current technology by which historians and other scholars track down original sources might be as outdated as the sliderule. Or maybe not. We just don't know in advance. My point here and more generally is that it's easy to confuse technologies with which we're familiar with fundamentals about how we understand the world. The question of whether to permit citation of Wikipedia, like the question of whether to permit laptops in classrooms, should be answered with regard to our best estimate of the real-world consequences at any given moment in time.


Trevor Morrison said...

Very interesting, Mike. So what would you say about professional legal academics citing Wikipedia? Brian Leiter, e.g., takes a very dim view of the practice except in limited circumstances. See

Michael C. Dorf said...

For sure, I wouldn't do it, but that may just be because I don't want to reveal myself to my fellow academics as improperly socialized. If norms change, I would do it.

Luis Villa said...

I'd love to see an analysis of academic and court cites to wikipedia. My sense, admittedly with a very small sample size, is that it is often cited for general definitions- i.e., if a court wants to discuss LCDs without actually stooping to explain what an LCD is, they'll just footnote/cite wikipedia. In that sort of usage, a wikipedia link seems harmless- if the definition of LCD is only slightly off, it harms no one. If the exact definition of an LCD is central to the case, of course then a wikipedia link would be inappropriate- but I've never seen such a cite, and I wonder how often they are actually happening. Seems like it might be a neat project for someone to do.

Jamison Colburn said...

This strikes me as a bit of a false choice. There are, we can easily agree, many propositions for which wikipedia would be not just a decent source to cite, but indeed the source to cite. No? For example, "any fool knows that . . . " would derive only coincidental support from most of the contents in Nature. Plus, I think I recall that the kernel that began wikipedia came from the public domain'ed 1911 version of Britannica. I assume it is still in there somewhere (history tabs) -- and that many of its entries are as true today as they were then. What's really changed since then on, i dunno, the history of the middle east? I agree that citing wikipedia for many propositions in legal academic work is poor tribalism. But don't most people get that this is evolving and is likely to change eventually (if not to wikipedia itself, then to other peer production/open sources)?

Anonymous said...



A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX





Anonymous said...

免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片

Anonymous said...

I am so happy to get some hero gold and the hero online gold is given by my close friend who tells me that the hero online money is the basis to enter into the game. Therefore, I should buy hero gold with the spare money and I gain some hero money from other players.

Anonymous said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店上班,暑假打工,酒店公關,酒店兼職,酒店經紀

Anonymous said... . .
[url=]puma shoes[/url]
[url=]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=]nike air max ltd[/url]

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店工作, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀,,

Unknown said...

Those are best online website , best service , best quality. Good luck !
ed hardy clothing
Chaussures Sport
Tennis Racquet Shop
Cheap Polo Shirts
The North Face Jackets
cheap ed hardy
Chaussures Sport
Tennis Racquet
nike shox r4
ed hardy
cheap ed hardy
polo shirts
cheap polo
Remise Chaussures Sport
nike tn requin
ed hardy clothes
nike femmes chaussures