UK Police Told To Use Wikipedia When Preparing For Court 180
Half-pint HAL tips news of UK prosecution lawyers who are instructing police to study information on Wikipedia when preparing to give expert testimony in court.
"Mike Finn, a weaponry specialist and expert witness in more than 100 cases, told industry magazine Police Review: 'There was one case in a Midlands force where police officers asked me to write a report about a martial art weapon. The material they gave me had been printed out from Wikipedia. The officer in charge told me he was advised by the CPS to use the website to find out about the weapon and he was about to present it in court. I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up.' Mr. Finn, a former Metropolitan Police and City of London officer and Home Office adviser, added that he has heard of at least three other cases where officers from around the country have been advised by the CPS to look up evidence on Wikipedia."
Wikipedia as a source of truth? (Score:0, Insightful)
Wikipedia is now the source of truth, but the problem with it is that it has nothing to do with truth but only with an agreement about already published sources, where complete nonsense almost inevitably follows.
An interesting discussion on Wikipedia as Truth by popularity is here:
http://www.pandalous.com/nodes/truth_by_popularity
CPS? (Score:1, Insightful)
If you're using acronyms, you should identify what they stand for since there are lots of readers from outside the UK. "Characters per second" perhaps?
what makes this a problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes this a problem? Is it a problem? Is the contention "what makes an expert" or that a supposed expert isn't able to recall the information from resident memory and experience?
This is problematic, however, when wp provides non-factual information. In my mind, it calls to credulity the "expert witness" concept in general. If we've got expert witnesses having to look things up to provide testimony on them, what is their value? Especially in light of the supposed factual question.
All sources should be suspect (Score:5, Insightful)
When I read stories like this I imagine people going to sources other than Wikipedia (like, say, a textbook) and just doggedly believing everything they read. At least with Wikipedia (most) people have the sense to take everything they read with a grain of salt. Follow the citations people. Do your own research. If you're so easily convinced that something is "truth" then its not Wikipedia that's the problem.
Re:Expert? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying someone with a technical background but no specific knowledge of item x should not be allowed to study the specifics? Being an expert isn't knowing everything, it's knowing the background, methods and having a good working knowledge of the field, not knowing every single piece of info in that field.
citation needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wikipedia as a source of truth? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather have them look stuff up on Wikipedia than not do any research at all, I suppose. At least they'll be right some of the time.
So is a broken clock.
And this is not meant as a joke.
Respect my authority (Score:1, Insightful)
Most other sources "make stuff up" also (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
But what stops the police themselves editing Wikipedia, and then citing it back in court?
What stops the anyone from editing the Wikipedia and making use of it in court?
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Expert? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell that to every high school teacher in america. As far as they're concerned the ability to memorize every piece of useless trivia thrown at you over an entire year means far more than your ability to actually find the solution to a given problem.
How stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, how stupid are people? I really don't understand. Wikipedia is an amazing source of information. Anyone who wants an introduction to a topic that they know nothing about can start with Wikipedia. I honestly don't know a better way to get an introduction on most topics. That said, people should believe, but verify what they read on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not perfect, but the error rate is lower than most sources. Furthermore, the Wikipedia error rate in some cases can be lower than retaining a consultant who is an expert on a subject. It all depends on what the expert is being paid to say. If money or people's lives depend on the answer, it is especially important to verify Wikipedia's information.
At this point, I would find fault with someone doing research and did not review Wikipedia's entry.
"Trust but verify" It doesn't get any more simple than that.
Besides, Wikipedia's entries are rarely exhaustive. Wikipedia provides good overviews of subjects with an error rate lower than most other sources of information. The key word here is overview. Anyone interested in a deep understanding of topic should read the Wikipedia entry and then dig deeper.
Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I think it is awesome to have another example of user generated media reaching the big leagues.
Second, I think it is great for cops to seek truth through research. I would like to see more of this sort of behavior. It is primarily those cops who fail to seek truth through research that are problematic. If a good cop finds out he's got the wrong suspect, he will get that person cleared and go after the real perp. Bad cops are still a problem, but research doesn't change that.
Third, as noted by others, Wikipedia is a good research tool when used the way all research tools should be; with skepticism, verification, and critical thinking. Cops, particularly detectives, are trained in such thinking. It is how they find bad guys. To the extent that they are not skilled in that art, it is because of a failure to retain sharp enough cops. Fix city hall or increase compensation, but don't blame Wikipedia.
Finally, and I think most importantly, think about the fact-checking this provides for Wikipedia. If the opposing attorney knows that information is coming from Wikipedia, he or she is going to target that info and try to break it. They will present their contrary findings, if any, in court. Those proceedings will be public and can be used to vet Wikipedia content. Heck, the attorney him or herself might submit the corrections.
Re:This is sad. (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Hack wikipedia with laughably ludicrous info ...
2) Destroy prosecution's credibility
3)
4) Acquittal!!!!!
Re:Surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
Primary sources could (and should) be reviewed scholarly papers. The Internet is in fact a great medium for researching and referencing papers as they can be inspected instantly. In that aspect, the Internet is a far better medium for knowledge than printed books.
Re:Heh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Citations are there for a reason (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Hack wikipedia with laughably ludicrous info
2) Destroy prosecution's credibility
You forgot step 1.5: Convince the marks not to follow the citations (if any)
Re:Expert? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to every high school teacher in america. As far as they're concerned the ability to memorize every piece of useless trivia thrown at you over an entire year means far more than your ability to actually find the solution to a given problem.
Flip side: Talk to high school students. They feel they should not actually have to learn anything, and just get A's. Any test that requires them to actually know something, use a little reason, and come up with an answer that is not directly word for word from a book is unfair; and their parent's will let you know that and expect you to give their darling an A.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when did deciding what the law was come to relying on expert witnesses or references? Even in cases where the interpretation of the law was being questioned, this would be based on legal arguments and previous cases. It would be just as nonsensical to look it up on Britannica.
Re:Expert? (Score:3, Insightful)
To acheive a "background" in an area, you do require simple rote learning of certain basics. Reaching a certain competency in mathematics, science and use of the english language, all essential to some degree in everyday life nevermind a profession, does amongst other things, require rote learning of basic information. Also, kids are in general pretty good at such rote learning and learning things by repetition (which is unfortunately "boring" and indeed fairly pointless for kids who've already grasped something).
There has been plenty of experimentation with alternative teaching methods, and while some useful experience has been garnered by this, in my mind it has also shown that we merely need to improve and suppliment traditional learning, rather than replace it entirely as the ideology warriors would have us do.
Re:All sources should be suspect (Score:2, Insightful)
As the other reply points out - what's new?
In order to claim that Wikipedia is bad, you'll have to show that Wikipedia is significantly worse than sources that these people were trusting as fact beforehand. And the vast majority of people were surely not relying on Britannica! Partly because many do not have access, but also because many people use Wikipedia for topics not covered by Britannica (e.g., current events in the news, or something too obscure). I bet most people, myself included, relied on sites found through a Google search, be they webpages that anyone could set up, forums, or media articles. Alternatively they just relied on the media full stop.
The first two of these are not accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia, so its reliability if anything should be better. And even where it does rely on media articles, because you tend to get information from a range of sources rather than just one, this makes it more likely to show up inaccuracies, and separate fact from opinion. Together with the strive for NPOV (unlike the media, where being outright biased is acceptable and something most of them actively strive for), I think this helps make things more reliable than anything before on the Internet.
Not to mention all the "citation needed" and warnings that many articles have. Wikipedia does a much better job of making readers think about accuracy - much better than the media, or Britannica.