It seems the greatest value of Wikipedia is consistently as a repository of citations. The reliance of moderation or review of those citations is the question.
EDIT: I hear complaints from students all the time that they are not allowed to cite Wikipedia. I tell them no you should instead cite the Wikipedia citations. They invariably tell me how much better they do academically because of that.
It’s really unfortunate that people copy claims made in Wikipedia (often without double-checking any other source) but then don’t cite Wikipedia. Often the claims made by Wikipedia are wrong, misleading, sloppy, one-sided, etc., and this (widespread) practice helps to perpetuate those problematic claims by making it seem that other authors are independently claiming the same thing. Then when future Wikipedia editors or others look for evidence of something, they find a number of sources that seem to corroborate the claim, but under close inspection turn out to a circular chain built on flimflam; unfortunately that close inspection often never happens.
Students should be encouraged to cite Wikipedia when they found information in Wikipedia, so that when they grow up and start writing real research papers they will continue citing Wikipedia when they find information there.
Finding information somewhere and then not citing it (or citing some random other source that actually says something different) erodes the whole academic project. Any teacher who tells their students not to cite Wikipedia should be ashamed.
Wikipedia is not a primary source. Students can cite the original source but not wikipedia itself. The university departments i'm aware of still don't allow citing wikipedia and explicitly cover it as bad style. And i have to agree with the professors there. The quality is plain bad, last time i checked a medical article on wikipedia it was full off of claims without citations and those claims contradicted official medical guidelines. If i would receive a academic home assignment without citations the student would have failed the course, so why should it be OK on wikipedia.
> The university departments i'm aware of still don't allow citing wikipedia and explicitly cover it as bad style.
It's worth noting that Wikipedia is not special in this regard — those same departments probably also consider it bad style to cite Britannica (and, if they don't, they should).
Encyclopaedias are meant to be starting points for research, not the ultimate destination. Editors, both of Wikipedia and otherwise, are not expected to be subject matter experts, which is why the guidance on Wikipedia is that you're not even supposed to use primary sources as reference, but rather secondary sources[0].
If students would always look carefully and critically at the relevant sources Wikipedia cites, assess their authors’ biases, compare multiple sources, etc., before ultimately picking what to cite, that would be one thing.
But what happens instead (in people’s published journal papers! not to mention news articles, etc.) is authors lazily crib material from Wikipedia and then either cite nothing or randomly pick works from among Wikipedia’s sources to cite without ever looking at them.
If you are writing a paper you should cite where you got the information. If the only place you looked was Wikipedia, that’s not great research practice but you should still cite Wikipedia. Honesty is an even more important part of scholarship than diligence.
> so that when they grow up and start writing real research papers they will continue citing Wikipedia when they find information there.
I guess it's fine to be idealistic here but most reviewers would look down upon your work if you do this. And that impression can be the difference between acceptance and rejection. I'm sure ideally this shouldn't happen, but it is what it is for now.
I think it's honesty rather than idealism. If someone took a shortcut by reading Wikipedia instead of research papers, it would be dishonest to try to hide that.
Of course, dishonesty often works, but it undermines the whole endeavor.
(Although, the original author still deserves credit for their work. Perhaps the citation should be to the original work "via Wikipedia".)
Well, a citation usually not about where you found something.
It's more about trying to trace the origin about a particular fact or scientific contribution.
Some of them are, which is why it's important to look at the sources and verify for themselves. Citing a news article provides a very different level of evidence for an assertion than a peer reviewed paper.
Of course they are. Which is why every scholar should cite where they found their information, so that readers can chase down the reference and critically examine it. Authors should cite the source whether it is a blog post, a newspaper article, a popular textbook, a journal paper, a historical accounting document, or private correspondence with a colleague.
When people don’t cite their actual sources it becomes orders of magnitude more difficult to figure out how they came up with their claims and trace the origin and transmission of those claims through the literature.
It is entirely possible to fix those mistakes (one at a time) on Wikipedia.... if you do the research work to find out what happened.
But this takes significant effort (like, a half-day of research to sort out one claim), and then sometimes back and forth with other Wikipedians to convince people that you actually chased down the real story.
The problem is that for every mistake someone is willing to put effort into fixing, there are another 100 that nobody ever notices.
Not directing this comment at you, but to the other children of this thread:
So much criticism of wikipedia seems to come down to: wikipedia did X. I think X is wrong. Other people don't see it that way. I don't want to spend the time proving my point. How dare wikipedia not just take me, a random internet stranger, at my word.
All i want to know is how do y'all think it could possibly work differently? Everybody thinks they are right. Nobody intentionally is wrong. Obviously if you just show up, unwilling to explain why you are right or unwilling to accept compelling counter arguments to your point, its not going to go your way. Why would anybody think it would?
Activists are willing to invest orders of magnitude more time, energy, and discomfort into winning. They are willing to break most social norms to have their narrative become the default. They're willing to suppress facts that would support alternate narratives. They're willing to put their thumb on the scale when inconvenient facts are unavoidable. Et cetera.
Non-activists are not willing to do any of those things.
It's not about right or wrong, it's about activism: who engages in it and how much.
But sure, let's let the activists win—or force everyone to become activists to "compete". I'm sure that'll make the world a better place.
----
Or we could ban activism since it is fundamentally anti-social bullying behavior. Maybe make a "code of conduct" that prohibits it. Just spitballing here…
It's pretty simple to identify activists mechanically (and at scale): they are in the fat part of the power law for contributions. Simply limit people's ability to contribute and et voilà !, the activism problem has been vastly reduced, if not eliminated. Non-activists now have a chance.
Not always. Any particular two or more wikipedians who decide they don't want something in can sometimes stop it.
For example, in Australia there is a body that does sport participation statistics, Ausplay. They do this every year. It's a great source for sport statistics on Australia.
Two wikipedians decided that these statistics were not permissible in the sport in Australia article. They won :
This is sport in Australia, which is not that controversial. Now things that are controversial like IQ or the role of heritability in ability are surely going to be problematic.
If I’m reading this right, I’m seeing a vote taking place in the “Survey” section, with 5 votes invoked — 2 no, 3 yes.
And an end result of No Consensus.
Framing this as if 2 Wikipedians exercising outsized power to produce this ruling seems disingenuous at best. And their basic objection (I only bothered skimming) of bias and ambiguity in the source/data/methodology seems fairly reasonable on its face; whether it’s correct I have no idea but it’d be a reasonable objection
As a policy, this whole thing seems like good behavior; the only gap is in the lack of voting participants. I suppose it is a real problem if the vote can’t be recast when more people are willing, but otherwise
>Now things that are controversial like IQ or the role of heritability in ability are surely going to be problematic.
FYI this kind of "wrong think" is already being removed in many articles. The way it's removed is applying the existing deep and numerous rules more strictly to information which cuts against the current dominant cultural narratives. For one of the best examples I can provide, have a look at how the "Feminism" and "Men's Rights" pages are written. Completely different standards for evidence, commentary, style, and even sections. Criticism of men's rights is evident in the heading, while of course, there is no criticism of feminism in Feminism's heading.
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has described Wikipedia as "badly biased." He's 100% correct.
If you can’t be bothered to sign up for a free account, it’s unlikely you’ll do the (sometimes nontrivial) amount of research required to prove your case if you get in an edit war with another author.
You could equally well say “I find obvious errors in textbooks / lecture videos / journal articles / paper encyclopedias / ... all the time but it’s too hard to contact the author so I don’t do anything about it”.
The main difference is that in Wikipedia you can do something about it with some extra effort. So it’s actually a much better situation than most kinds of resources.
The pages that are “locked” are usually locked because they are spam magnets. Not allowing IP edits is unfortunate (and does discourage simple corrections to articles), but in the highest traffic parts of the site the work saved from not having to revert dozens of low-effort vandal posts is (at least arguably) worth the downside.
> overruled by partisan
You wouldn’t believe the amount of abject nonsense and spam that gets cleaned up by those “partisans”. But Wikipedia is an open project, the “partisans” here are just other (slightly more experienced) volunteers not in any way fundamentally different from yourself, and if you can convincingly prove your case via polite conversation you will win the argument (if there is a local dispute it’s generally possible to get more eyeballs on it by escalating to a broader group of volunteers).
* * *
P.S. someone named Slartibartfast turning down a chance to work on the real-life Hitchhiker’s Guide?
Interesting. None of the versions here are wrong exactly (i.e. in none of these cases were Wikipedians making things up or clearly misconstruing what they read), but sources out in the world that Wikipedia authors pulled their information from have incomplete stories, and sometimes one version contradicts the other.
This isn't generally true in my experience. Wikipedia values secondary sources, even outright wrong secondary sources, over primary sources. It often happens that all secondary sources are wrong (for example reporting on popular personalities like Elon Musk) and the very clear and obvious interpretation of the primary source is ignored, for all of the secondary sources that twist the words of what was said.
The point is that the relevant feedback is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, not that you should not cite Wikipedia. They sound similar but they are fundamentally very different.
For former encourages the behaviour of finding other sources that are reliable. The latter encourages quoting Wikipedia without citing it.
It's so silly for teachers to say "you are not allowed to cite Wikipedia". It's a cart-before-horse approach, mindless rule-following. The principle in academic writing is that you cite whatever you used for your research. IF you read the Wikipedia article and base some of your conclusions on its synthesis, then you MUST cite Wikipedia, citing the sources of Wikipedia would be misleading IF you don't read those cited sources yourself. It's all about traceability and credit assigment. You can of course cite also what Wikipedia cites but you have to cite Wikipedia if you use claims from there that you didn't actually get from looking at the source cited by Wikipedia.
However! It's also important to teach students how sources differ in quality or "authoritativeness". The problem with citing Wikipedia is not the citing per se but relying on that source. A peer reviewed academic journal is considered more reliable, although no source should be taken as gospel and definitive truth, especially on controversial topics.
You can even cite blog posts, personal letters, and even personal oral communication! The point is to let the reader know where your info comes from. Making students memorize rules like "don't cite Wikipedia" just results in a cargo cult, not actual understanding of critical thinking related to sources.
If I understand the article correctly, it's not about incorrect information -- i.e. it's not claiming Wikipedia misleads judges because the articles are wrong -- but about "influence" of Wikipedia on decisions; an influence that could be gamed by an adversarial actor.
References themselves are gameable. They argue references mentioned in Wikipedia are more likely to be cited by a judge!
This is not about the quality of Wikipedia, but about its undue influence and how easy it is to game it, references included!
Judges would consult encyclopedias and similar resources 40 years ago.
The difference is that a crowdsourced resource like Wikipedia is easier to manipulate by people who understand the system. There are plenty of PR specialists who get client articles pushed into Wikipedia or updated to their liking.
Wikipedia is a treasure, but it’s also vulnerable to a bunch of different attacks.
What would be the best alternative to Wikipedia at getting a list of citations on a topic quickly? For academic research I consider the content of the page as "Yeah, maybe" but the citations to be more useful in terms of digging to deeper sources faster. The argument could be made that the ability of almost anyone to edit Wikipedia is a form of peer review but for edge topics it's tough to tell who has the chops to be editing a page and who doesn't.
> What would be the best alternative to Wikipedia at getting a list of citations on a topic quickly?
If you're looking for major/important sources to read on a topic, not just a quick way to halfway-fake a works-cited section, I've found it valuable to locate some representative, recent academic book in the field and read the author's introduction and other pre-chapter-1 material. These will often include a lot of name-dropping of what are considered major works in the field. There may also be a list of abbreviations the book will use, and those often include several major works in the field that'll come up often in the body text.
That's your list of books and papers to find and read. Repeat that technique with each of those books and papers, too, if you want to keep going deeper.
Often you can get enough off an Amazon or Google preview of a book for this to work. Plus, libraries exist, and you pull that kind of information out of several books (which can be handy—anything that appears more than once deserves special attention) in less than an hour, without checking anything out. And there's always Library Genesis, which may not have every book but probably has at least one in your interest area that can be mined in this way.
Wikipedia's sort of useful for this, at least for tracking down a first work to attack with this approach, but the problem is that many articles don't cite highly-regarded or authoritative or landmark works on the topic, so much as whatever the author(s) happened to have handy or what was easiest to find online (a whole hell of a lot of great information is still not available on the Web, even in 2022, including material in very recent books, not just pre-Web ones, or is available on the Web but only in poorly- or not-indexed-by-web-search-engines under-copyright ebooks).
The most useful tool is the academic citation graph, e.g. via Google Scholar.
Start with a couple keywords. Click through the "cited by n" links on the top few papers. For papers that don’t have PDFs freely available, find DOIs and put them into Sci-hub. Books can often be found at the Internet Archive, Google Books, or libgen. At the start, skim skim skim.
Look at what links forward and backward from the papers you see. Hunt for new keywords to try. Go a few hops all around the graph. It often doesn’t take too long to get a rough lay of the land.
Academic citation graphs are invaluable WHERE the topic is academic, but this post (like most citations I would venture to say) is an example of citing Wikipedia that would generally not be considered academic or in the results of the articles and case law of scholar.google.com.
There is a huge body of knowledge that lies (dare I say) in a Google search. You just need to know how to evaluate the search results with a reasonable criteria of notability, relevance, accuracy, etc.
Very well said, I'm writing a book (popular narrative non-fiction) and the research process has led me to the exact same conclusion. Find a couple "pinnacle" books related to the domain/subject/question you're interested in, and read the Preface, Introduction, Ch. 1, etc. This is often the only place in a book authors are candid enough to directly answer the question of "why am I writing this and how does it relate to what other's have done?"
No shade intended, if anything I need to work on this style. I'm too nervous of making it sound like other people's ideas are my own, but then I end up writing a block of defensive-sounding citation & qualification, and nobody wants to read that...
Academic journal articles may be more convenient, because they usually focus on the key citations for a field in the brief literature review. Use Google Scholar to find some, then download from Sci-Hub.
Usually you can find survey/review articles, or textbooks and look at what they cite. You can also try to find websites of research groups in the area with good reputations and check out their recent works and the citations therein. Especially works that you see multiple times using this approach will be important core works, from which you can go further. General Google searches and Google Scholar keyword searches and exploring the citation graph are also useful.
Wikipedia may be a good start if you're completely clueless about a topic. But, academically-speaking, it doesn't last long. You're not going to be able to produce anything more insightful than a fresher's last minute sunday night essay using wikipedia.
It depends on your field, but most fields publish review articles. These are written by a single author or two in the field, and perform no new analysis beyond just listing all the current info about the field. Here is an example for oncology, this one is periodically republished every few years as more info is learned by the field:
Sadly I think that the value of Wikipedia in this lamentable example of judicial laziness and professional under funding is the web just happens to be more easily searched than LEXIS. Easily != competently.
The citations on Wikipedia articles are often either broken, in a foreign language, or not up to an academic standard. However, following this practice is what eventually lead me to stop using Wikipedia for anything. When I tried to trace the citations to make my research easier, I found it actually made it a lot slower because I kept running into junk. Before I actually paid attention to the citations on a broad selection of articles, I was under the mistaken belief that Wikipedia was "good enough."
They have weird requirements for citations. Want to cite a link to a blog where a guy has spent 20,000 hours researching a topic but doesn’t have a degree? Not allowed. Want to post a link to a NYT article written by a journalist with no relevant experience in that same field? Go for it. It’s really strange. It’s like they’re aiming for narrative over fact or something.
One big problem is that many “real” scholars discount the importance of making sure Wikipedia has good (comprehensive, accurate, well sourced) articles about their areas of expertise, leaving the task to the (often misguided) efforts of amateur enthusiasts.
A wikipedia article is going to have orders of magnitude more influence than nearly any journal article or textbook, and scholars should put at least a basic amount of effort into improving them.
"because randomized experiments are the gold standard for this type of research, we know the effect we are seeing is causation, not just correlation"
No, they don't. Correlation is not causation, even if you see it in a randomized experiment. With shoddy reasoning like this, it's no wonder science has a replication crisis.
As I understand it a randomized controlled trial (RCT) can determine causation. But I don’t think “what they did with this setup” was an RCT. A real RCT in this context should IMHO assign new cases randomly to a “treatment” or “control” group. In this setup they assign legal precedents randomly, but all new cases are effectively under “treatment”. That’s not the same thing.
How are new cases effectively under treatment? They identified 150 decisions, wrote articles for each, and assigned half randomly to treatment or control. they did not consider newer cases beyond this set of 150. An RCT is a type of randomized experiment, but all determine causation:
You’re right. It’s the legal precedents / decisions that are the “patients” here. The new cases (that cite those precedents / decisions) are just… let’s say “test results”.
So yes, this is a way to determine causation in relation to what legal precedents / decisions will be cited in new cases depending on the contents of Wikipedia.
I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that they claimed a causal link between their Wikipedia articles and the outcome of new cases. The chosen setup cannot IMHO prove such a causal relationship, in the strict statistical sense. That would require randomizing new cases and applying the “treatment” (new Wikipedia articles) only to some of them.
I’ll leave open the possibility that it’s everyone else that’s wrong but RCTs are used to establish causality and are as much “proof” as you’re gonna get in science.
Hell ya know what I’ll just let the actual paper explain it.
> The second, more important advantage of randomized field experiments is that they can distinguish causation from correlation. The ability to prove causal relationships derives from the combination of two characteristics. The first is having a control group, that is, a group unaffected by the intervention (in our case, publication of a Wikipedia article on the topic) that can be used as a counterfactual to estimate the size of causal effects. The second is randomization, that is, random assignment into the control and intervention groups. With sufficient data and a sound experimental design, the experiment can reduce the probability of being misled by correlation or noise to whatever arbitrarily small value is desired.
> RCTs are used to establish causality and are as much “proof” as you’re gonna get in science.
No, they're not. The real "gold standard" in science--the standard that prevails in, for example, physics or chemistry--is a controlled experiment. Not just a "randomized controlled trial", but a controlled experiment, where you can actually dictate exactly what state the things you are going to experiment on start out in. And the eventual output of controlled experiments is a predictive model--a model that can predict, accurately, what will happen if you run further experiments. That is what it takes to truly "establish causality".
But in most other domains, including the one under study here, controlled experiments simply cannot be done and predictive models with any kind of accuracy simply don't exist. The correct response to that unfortunate fact is to realize that we can never achieve the same level of confidence in these other domains as we can in domains like physics or chemistry where we can do controlled experiments. Unfortunately, the response "science" has settled on instead is to pretend that it doesn't matter--that because we can't do controlled experiments in these other domains, the universe will somehow magically lower its standards of what it takes to achieve the level of confidence we want. But the universe doesn't care what we can or can't achieve.
They did do a controlled experiment here. They had articles in a treatment group and articles in a controlled group. What are the shortcomings you have in mind when you say that "controlled experiments simply cannot be done" when it appears that they have done a controlled experiment?
No, they didn't. You can't do a controlled experiment on humans. Nobody has a "human source" that can stamp out a series of humans that are identical in all respects, to be used in an experiment, the way physicists have "particle sources" that can stamp out a series of identical particles. That's what "controlled experiment" means. The fact that they call one group a "control group" does not mean it's a controlled experiment. Humans can't be controlled to the degree required.
At that point you might as well write off the entire field of biology since no two animals could be identical. Even clones could be subject to random point mutations.
The partisanship on Wikipedia is becoming more and more visible. Here’s my favorite example [0]. One of the candidates has clearly been given a subpar picture and then had his profile locked from editing so that it can’t be changed. A quick Google search shows scores of better pictures, leading me to believe that this is intentional sabotage by the opposing candidate.
Fortunately, this is the kind of thing we can all sit back and laugh at. If a candidate can’t be arsed to hire a competent PR firm to handle their public profiles, then they probably don’t deserve the position.
Photos need to be Creative Commons licensed; Wikipedia can't just use ones from a random Google search.
The image for Mark Ronchetti was uploaded by a user who shot a video of him in 2020. Since they created the video, they own the copyright to the image and can license it to Wikimedia Commons:
I've emailed his campaign to ask if they have a photo they can license appropriately and upload to Commons. If you have a better photo of him (that you took yourself and are willing to license for free use), you can upload it here:
I'm giving it about 50/50 odds they'll fill out the form and the photo will stay up, but at least I tried.
I agree with the other posters who point out that this is a bit of an unfair advantage for incumbents (who have government-sponsored public domain photos available for use). It'd be an awesome thing for volunteers to try to help with, by reaching out to less tech-saavy campaigns as I've done here.
I've been to New Mexico maybe 4-5 times in my life and have basically zero stake in this race, but I guess duty calls[0]. ;)
To be sure, I don’t even live in Mark’s state and it’s on him if he wants another picture on his profile. You’re a stellar citizen, though, for taking action on your own!
I simply wanted to point out a trend on Wikipedia. Mark is just one of more than a dozen candidates with bad pictures or, worse, empty pictures that seem to be the result of sabotage. If you look on these candidates’ pages (or Mark’s page), you can look at the revision history and determine that there were past pictures taken down or replaced near election times.
Again, I don’t care. It’s up to these candidates to fix this stuff if they want to win. With the amount of money they’re bringing in, you’d think they could hire someone to spin them up nice profiles with ‘Political Stances’ sections and quirky stories about their family life. I wonder if they intentionally keep their profiles empty to funnel traffic to their personal websites instead.
Ronchetti's Wikipedia page has never had any other photos. And the article was protected[0] due to a series of vandalism edits on July 10[1] that had nothing to do with his page's photo.
You are right that his article has a poor quality photo, which seems to be due to it being the only free-licensed photo available, but it's simply wrong to use this article as evidence of some sort of "partisanship on Wikipedia". If anything it is an example of bias towards incumbents, who get professional taxpayer-funded public domain portraits that are easy to drop into Wikipedia pages.
?? I see him as having had a different picture as of this [0] edit (several years ago). The filename (MarkRonchettiNM.png) is a different filename than the current one, leading me to believe that the file was simply taken off the Wikipedia servers and redlinked.
Apologies, I did not see that image in the article's history. I assume it lacked a free license as the other commenter mentioned.
Interestingly, the current image on that article appears to also not be legitimately freely licensed. It is a screen shot of a Youtube video uploaded by a resort in New Mexico. The uploader[0] gives no indication on their user profile that they are affiliated with the resort, while putting a Creative Commons license on the screenshot that the Youtube page makes no indication of.
The uploader is also now suspended on all Wikimedia projects for abusively using multiple accounts, and their main account[1] has on their talk page lots of records of deleted political-oriented images with many instances of inaccurate licensing and poor quality.
(If someone has a Wikipedia account it would be nice to flag the image on Ronchetti's page for deletion!)
All this to say, Wikipedia's editing process can by its nature be pretty messy and often produce some suboptimal results, until such time as someone comes along and fixes it. This should not be confused with a concerted effort by the people running the project itself.
The opposing candidate has a public domain photo published by the US government, her employer. The challenger does not, and does not have a Press Kit on his campaign page, despite having already run a full campaign 2 years ago.
> The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that conservative media outlets claimed without evidence had belonged to Hunter Biden. They further stated that the laptop had been dropped off but never collected.by an unknown individual at the Wilmington, Delaware repair shop of a blind proprietor in April 2019.
Three paragraphs saying it's all made up, you can't trust the NY Post's reporting, it's probably just Russian propaganda and then it finishes with:
> In March 2022, The New York Times reported it had authenticated some emails "from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop."[10][11] Also in March, The Washington Post reported that two security experts authenticated thousands of the 129,000 emails, though the vast majority of the laptop contents, including most of its emails, could not be authenticated.[12] Among the emails that The Washington Post was able to authenticate was the Pozharskyi email that formed the basis of the New York Post's original article.
A study that literally affects the constitutional landscape of a nation based on coin flips - the ethics review board discussions must have been interesting.
Most (all?) of those decisions were going to come down the same way regardless; the judge (or clerk or amicus brief author or whoever) had already decided and the citations are just a way of making up a post-facto justification.
There’s even a whole “judicial philosophy” based around this method of deciding first (based on personal preference or coin tosses or bribes or whatever) and then cherry-picking citations to pretend it wasn’t really your own decision / avoid having to explain your reasoning: so-called “originalism”. And it goes back decades, long before Wikipedia.
> Most (all?) of those decisions were going to come down the same way regardless; the judge (or clerk or amicus brief author or whoever) had already decided and the citations are just a way of making up a post-facto justification.
It's true that since they find that the gain appears to be concentrated in 'positive' citations, used as justification, they probably didn't flip many decisions immediately (if any). But they also do followup linguistic analysis to show that (like the earlier studies) judges are borrowing language in describing their decisions. So you are going to have an accumulating effect here where the citations at zeroth order are used for justification, but that makes those cases better known later on, and they will be described as the article describes, and increasingly interpreted that way when read by later judges due to being precedent, and who will then copy it (that's how common law is supposed to work!). And that may well start begin flipping cases.
Finding a source that conveniently supports the judgement you wish to deliver, is not quite the same thing as being swayed by the source you come across. Both would manifest as an increase in citations, and it's hard to tell which has occurred here (perhaps a mix - but in what ratio?)
I disagree. The actual paper shows it was approved by the ethics boards of two universities. Here is a quote from the paper describing the actual methodology for creating the articles:
> The experiment featured Wikipedia entries authored by faculty and by law students under faculty supervision, who each had access, through their university library, to all the relevant primary and secondary legal materials available to judges and their clerks. This assurance of accuracy and of informed analysis in the content of the entries — though short of that offered by a specialist textbook — indicates that judges or lawyers would be unlikely to be misled by what they might read.
I find nothing ethically questionable at all about publishing accurate legal analysis on a case anywhere, including Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, some IRBs are notoriously bad at preventing unethical research practices, since in practice they are often more focused on ensuring adherence to various bureaucratic requirements.
The issue isn't that they were misleading anyone; the issue is that they were, for research purposes, trying (successfully) to influence the outcomes of court cases without the subjects' consent.
No, it absolutely was not an attempt to influence judicial outcomes. It was a test to see whether publishing accurate analysis of precedential cases would cause those cases to be cited more than they otherwise would. Not only is there no harm in doing so (since the information is accurate), neither you nor the researchers can know whether any case outcomes were influenced. And, in fact, the analysis of the paper, which says that the cases were cited more often when the citing judge agreed with the conclusion of the case, which, if anything, suggests that the outcomes of these cases were most likely not affected.
Moreover, if you want to claim this study was unethical, you need to show that there at least could have potentially been harm as a result of it being carried out. Please explain how publishing correct legal analysis of cases anywhere could possibly cause harm.
In short, if you want to make this claim, you need to provide actual evidence, and not just outrage.
Hang on, doesn't deliberate manipulation of the consumption of counterfactual legal precedent by a sitting judiciary (withholding with measurable effect the countering case references is the study method) only result in a spate of mistrials?
Ed. legal precedent replaced sources for clarity of this significance
Forget the internet for a second and imagine there was a collection of cases in a book compiled by a group of law professors and legal students, summarized for easy reference. That book omits some cases that are relevant to the subject of the book for one reason or another. A judge/clerk reads that book to gain insight to some of the cases in a particular area. Is that grounds for a mistrial? Clearly not, IMO.
I think you misread the article (or I’m misreading you). There were no counterfactual legal precedents published. They took a set of cases and for half of them published Wikipedia articles on them for half, did not publish them (the non-publication was the counterfactual case, not the contents of the articles).
A mistrial because the judge did a google search and found the article a hired law student wrote carefully and accurately and added to a publicly available source?
I haven't read the paper but if Wikipedia serves as a detection tool, I don't particularly see a problem using it. Perhaps the real problem is the non-Wikipedia, canonical systems to find these probably-relevant cases?
This is why in itself Wikipedia cannot be a trusted source but should be treated as purely, an extension of the media. They choose who they can cite and who they cannot.
EDIT: I hear complaints from students all the time that they are not allowed to cite Wikipedia. I tell them no you should instead cite the Wikipedia citations. They invariably tell me how much better they do academically because of that.