Referencing Wikipedia and similar websites
According to Miller and Murray, there are moments when referencing Wikipedia and similar websites is appropriate while there are moments it is inappropriate. In the history of Wikipedia, its citation has led to some controversies. Nonetheless, they state that it is vital that the proper citation format is used in scenarios where its use is acceptable (Miller, & Murray, 2010). The article suggests a practical framework in deciding on the appropriateness of citing Wikipedia and other consensus-based websites depending on the scenario. The confidence a reader has on an author can be affected by the misuse of sources such a Wikipedia. As for attorneys, they lose their credibility in front of clerks or judges, thereby complicating the services they are offering to their clients. Besides, if an academic publishes a work that the reader will consider shoddy and unpersuasive, their reputation is affected.
It is for the above reasons that Miller and Murray state that perceptions matter to the legal profession and acknowledging or using Wikipedia and similar sources as authorities should be avoided. Besides, according to Wilson and Liken, the fact that Wikipedia, as a source, is dynamic and compounded by “edit wars,” especially on controversial topics, can affect its information accuracy and stability. In the study, they concluded that the rate of daily editing in controversial pages was high, making it challenging to monitor accuracy, which is detrimental to scientific accuracy (Wilson & Likens, 2015). Therefore, they suggest that even in using sources such as Wikipedia as primary sources, one must pay attention to their dynamism and vulnerability, which opens them to shenanigans such as vandalism. Even though Wikipedia matures, it continues to cite scientific journal articles, and students and scientists have also started to embrace it, its dynamism is still a significant challenge.
Do you think that despite the criticism, Wikipedia and other websites are a valuable resource to the public, or do you think that some things are better left to the experts?
Although availability and accessibility of information have been made easier by the internet, not all information that results from a search is credible and reliable. As an online source of information, many scholars do not consider Wikipedia reliable since anyone can edit it. Therefore, it should only be used as a source for understanding the area or topic of research but not as a primary source. Primary sources require the input of experts. Besides, Wikipedia often provides further useful links and citations that one can rely on during research. For instance, Miller and Murray acknowledge the advantages of sources such as Wikipedia that makes them attractive (2010). Locating its articles is easy, and it has unparalleled and comprehensive coverage. Therefore, to avoid time wastage trying to find a perfect source, there are moments the legal profession can rely on Wikipedia.
However, the primary issue for consideration is the appropriateness of such sources, depending on the context. As is also stated by Wilson and Liken, failing to use common sense standards in citing sources similar to the Wikipedia could lead to controversy, which may lead to denying the legal profession a valuable resource by shunning it (2015). Due to the challenges Wikipedia as a source faces, academic papers should not cite such references because they require scrutiny and careful consideration. Besides, Wikipedia acknowledges its shortcomings as a source by stating that the scholarly quality of some of their articles is high while others are “complete rubbish.” Wikipedia even goes further to state their position on its use as an academic reference by stating it is not authoritative neither is it credible as a source.
What have courts said about citing to Wikipedia? Please find an example of a case.
Courts have looked at Wikipedia as a source of information in the past despite the ease with which anyone can edit it. Although the courts have used Wikipedia as a source in the past, the matters its reliance is sought matters. In the case of D Mag. Partners, L.P. v Rosenthal, S.W.3d, 2017 WL 1041234, 4-5, 60 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 617 (Tex. Mar. 17, 2017), the Texas Supreme Court (SC) looked at the issue of relying on Wikipedia as a source. The Court of Appeals (CoA) used Wikipedia as its primary source in defining the phrase “Welfare Queen” in trying to construe a defamatory meaning in a publication. In this case, the person alleging defamation was referred to as a “welfare queen” throughout the magazine’s article. The reliance of the court of appeal on Wikipedia prompted the magazine and some amici to challenge it.
Although the court acknowledged the fact that the use of Wikipedia citations in judicial opinions began more than a decade ago, precisely in 2004, they were scarce and often used in string citations and non-dispositive matters. For instance, the fifth circuit in Bing Shun Li v. Holder, 400 F. App’x 854, 857 (Fifth Cir. 2010) stated that information from Wikipedia is unreliable and should not be improperly used. According to the SC in the case of D Mag. Partners, there was an improper reliance on Wikipedia by the CoA in ascribing a narrow meaning to the phrase, which had a significant influence on the gist of the article. Therefore, the main problem with the CoA reliance on Wikipedia is that it used it as the basis of analyzing a critical issue.
Also, what sources have you learned about this term that you could use instead of sources like Wikipedia?
One can use several primary and secondary sources in place of Wikipedia. Primary sources are first-hand sources of the information, and they include research papers, documents about history, and autobiographies. As for secondary sources, they are based on primary sources, and they consolidate, analyze, interpret, or discuss them. However, both the secondary and primary sources must be credible in any academic research. Peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles are probably the most reliable source. Also, in the legal profession, judgments are a reliable source of information considering the critical role judges play in setting precedents as experts in that field (Harr et al., 2016).
Therefore, a credible source is one that is up to date, accurate, and true and does not discredit the status of the author. Some of the materials include research articles associated with well-known and respected authors, educational institutions and government websites, scholarly books, and documents retrieved from the academic database. However, some of the above sources might not be credible, thereby requiring extra scrutiny using different methods. For instance, one should determine if the author of the material is respected and well known, the period the document was published to determine if it is up to date, its purpose and whether it is proved, and the audience (Harr et al., 2016). Therefore, when it comes to the issue of audience, an academic audience needs a source emanating from conference papers, scholarly papers and books, and peer-reviewed journals.