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."
Snopes posted a couple of purposefully incorrect things once, in order to prove a point about not blindly trusting people. The fake stories backfired (or worked, depending on your view) and became real urban legends. Hilarious.
Snopes posted a couple of purposefully incorrect things once, in order to prove a point about not blindly trusting people. The fake stories backfired (or worked, depending on your view) and became real urban legends. Hilarious.
I heard that too, but I checked and it turned out to be just an urban legend.
Even if you don't believe a word of what Wikipedia says, it's probably a good idea to study Wikipedia just in case you need to rebuke any of its "facts".
Crown Prosecution Service (American's can call this a district attorney, they're the prosecution) Feel free to mod me up.
Ironically, you can look this up at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/CPS [wiktionary.org]. I also knew this before having to look it up, so I can say it's actually accurate.
But what stops the police themselves editing Wikipedia, and then citing it back in court? It seems exactly the sort of thing the British police would do these days...
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.
I'll probably get modded down for this, but what the hell. the problem is they are using Wikipedia, which if you've ever read some of the snarky back stabbing BS their mods pull behind the scenes you would know is less like an encyclopedia and more like a little club that for some reason everybody trusts.
Sure if the article you are looking for is on some boring crap that the mods won't give a fart about one way or the other it will probably be fine. But if a mod there decides he like his 'facts" better tha
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.
Here's my Wikipedia story:
Several years ago, while reading the entry for my Alma Mater, I decided to add my name to the list of notable alumni. (I'm not notable.)
About a year later, when I decided to google my name and was shocked to see myself at my University's website on a page they had enumerating their famous alumni! That's right--my college did its research on Wikipedia.
I decided to write my own wikipedia entry page--which stuck!--and among other references linked back to my University's page showing that I was a notable alumni. (I've written a number of books, so I was able to have a number of references that looked legit enough that my page wasn't deleted.)
Last year, while reading the glossy brochure for my University, there was my name on a page that talked about all the 'famous' people that had graduated there. My little Wikipedia vandalism had come full circle and became the truth!
I do not trust Wikipedia, and use this as an example to prove how bad an idea it is.
"I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up."
I think I'd like a little more detail as to what facts he believed and which he didn't, or am I supposed to take his word for it, as he is an "expert". The beauty of wikipedia is it gives you some recourse to ascertain the truth or falsity of a statement via the citations, his statement did not. Wikipedia 1, Expert 0
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.
Look, I'm no fucking supporter of asshole militant Islamists but that doesn't mean that wikipedia doesn't have a pervasive Israel propaganda program problem. Everyone knows about CAMERA by now.
I didn't, but I looked it up. Thanks, Wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Cyberinfrastructure_for_ [wikipedia.org] Advanced_Marine_Microbial_Ecology_Research_and_Analysis
(by the way, slashdot: that "Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there." is fucking twattish. Fix it.)
There is lots of very useful information on the internet. Martial Arts weapons are a perfectly good example of finding high-quality, even admissable evidence. There is a Youtube series devoted for researching just such a topic. Feel free to search for "Ask a Ninja".
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.
"The Crown Prosecution Service, or CPS, is a non-ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom responsible for public prosecutions of people charged with criminal offences in England and Wales. Its role is similar to that of the longer-established Crown Office in Scotland, and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland. The CPS is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (currently Keir Starmer QC) who answers to the Attorney General for England and Wales (currently The Baroness Scotland of Asthal).
"The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for criminal cases beyond the investigation, which is the job of the police. This involves giving advice to the police on charges to bring, and being responsible for authorising all but a very few simple charges (such as begging), and preparing and presenting cases for court, both in magistrates' courts and, increasingly, the Crown Court."
"The Crown Prosecution Service, or CPS, is a non-ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom responsible for public prosecutions of people charged with criminal offences in England and Wales. Its role is similar to that of the longer-established Crown Office in Scotland, and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland. The CPS is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (currently Keir Starmer QC) who answers to the Attor
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.
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.
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.
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 some
A link to a teaser summery that references and article that requires a paid subscription... And it is somehow marked informative. Good example of the problem here.
First, I am not disagreeing with you. I am just pointing out that we are having a discussion on an article most of us have not read. That is the problem. How many times are goofy comments here responded to with "Read the article?" It used to be that facts were born out by research, and now it is by consensus. (Like "The world is flat...") And the Wikipedia issue is just more of this in another place. Read the wiki, and do not check the sources...
And no I did not read the article. It was locked behin
The content of a book isn't more true just because it is printed out. A book without references can be just as misleading as a webpage without references.
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.
They would be better off using snopes.com. (Score:5, Funny)
After all, snopes is always correct.
Re:They would be better off using snopes.com. (Score:5, Funny)
Do you have any evidence of snopes.com being incorrect? I've never heard of anyone challenging their credulity.
Parent
Re:They would be better off using snopes.com. (Score:5, Funny)
The Wikipedia article on Snopes confirms its veracity. Unfortunately the Snopes article on Wikipedia does not reciprocate.
Parent
Re:They would be better off using snopes.com. (Score:5, Interesting)
Snopes posted a couple of purposefully incorrect things once, in order to prove a point about not blindly trusting people. The fake stories backfired (or worked, depending on your view) and became real urban legends. Hilarious.
Parent
Re:They would be better off using snopes.com. (Score:5, Funny)
Snopes posted a couple of purposefully incorrect things once, in order to prove a point about not blindly trusting people. The fake stories backfired (or worked, depending on your view) and became real urban legends. Hilarious.
I heard that too, but I checked and it turned out to be just an urban legend.
Parent
Re:They would be better off using snopes.com. (Score:4, Informative)
Citation [snopes.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you have any evidence of snopes.com being incorrect? I've never heard of anyone challenging their credulity.
Ahem... I believe that in this situation someone is supposed to say "whoosh [xkcd.com]".
This is sad. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is sad. (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Hack wikipedia with laughably ludicrous info ...
2) Destroy prosecution's credibility
3)
4) Acquittal!!!!!
Parent
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you saying that Johnnie Cochran got that stuff about Chewbacca living on Endor from Wikipedia?
Heh... (Score:5, Funny)
Just like police testimony in general!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just like police testimony in general!
Nah, that tends to be made up ABOUT a substance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CPS? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is CPS such a common abbreviation that every reader is expected to know what it stands for?
Re:CPS? (Score:5, Informative)
Crown Prosecution Service (American's can call this a district attorney, they're the prosecution)
Feel free to mod me up.
Ironically, you can look this up at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/CPS [wiktionary.org]. I also knew this before having to look it up, so I can say it's actually accurate.
Parent
Found it on Wikipedia (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Well... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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?
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
He... hehehe....
"See, your honor, it's NOT illegal to buy weed provided you tried to buy it from a narc officer. Says it right here, look it up!"
Parent
Re: (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.
Parent
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll probably get modded down for this, but what the hell. the problem is they are using Wikipedia, which if you've ever read some of the snarky back stabbing BS their mods pull behind the scenes you would know is less like an encyclopedia and more like a little club that for some reason everybody trusts.
Sure if the article you are looking for is on some boring crap that the mods won't give a fart about one way or the other it will probably be fine. But if a mod there decides he like his 'facts" better tha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Expert witnesses are rarely asked for book facts. Experts (at least in our courts) are usually asked for their opinion on a specific matter.
Lawyer: Objection (Score:5, Funny)
Jury: Speedy delete
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:All sources should be suspect (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
citation needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Next week in court... (Score:5, Funny)
Lawyer: "Mr. Finn, would you please tell us what you know about ninjas?"
Mr. Finn: "Certainly. 1. Ninjas are mammals. 2. Ninjas fight ALL the time. 3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people."
Re:Next week in court... (Score:4, Funny)
Lawyer: And what about pirates?
Mr. Finn: Oh no, you won't get me there.
Parent
Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Indepen (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Look, I'm no fucking supporter of asshole militant Islamists but that doesn't mean that wikipedia doesn't have a pervasive Israel propaganda program problem. Everyone knows about CAMERA by now.
I didn't, but I looked it up. Thanks, Wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Cyberinfrastructure_for_ [wikipedia.org] Advanced_Marine_Microbial_Ecology_Research_and_Analysis (by the way, slashdot: that "Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there." is fucking twattish. Fix it.)
I don't see what the big deal is (Score:3, Interesting)
There is lots of very useful information on the internet. Martial Arts weapons are a perfectly good example of finding high-quality, even admissable evidence. There is a Youtube series devoted for researching just such a topic. Feel free to search for "Ask a Ninja".
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.
They should have just posted an "Ask Slashdot" (Score:5, Funny)
If they'd posted an "Ask Slashdot" story they'd have a million or so armchair experts willing to provide testimony at the drop of a hat.
Re:They should have just posted an "Ask Slashdot" (Score:4, Funny)
If they'd posted an "Ask Slashdot" story they'd have a million or so armchair experts willing to provide testimony at the drop of a hat.
Yeah but this is only helpful if they have questions about armchairs.
Parent
Re:CPS? (Score:4, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prosecution_Service [wikipedia.org]
"The Crown Prosecution Service, or CPS, is a non-ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom responsible for public prosecutions of people charged with criminal offences in England and Wales. Its role is similar to that of the longer-established Crown Office in Scotland, and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland. The CPS is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (currently Keir Starmer QC) who answers to the Attorney General for England and Wales (currently The Baroness Scotland of Asthal).
"The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for criminal cases beyond the investigation, which is the job of the police. This involves giving advice to the police on charges to bring, and being responsible for authorising all but a very few simple charges (such as begging), and preparing and presenting cases for court, both in magistrates' courts and, increasingly, the Crown Court."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"The Crown Prosecution Service, or CPS, is a non-ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom responsible for public prosecutions of people charged with criminal offences in England and Wales. Its role is similar to that of the longer-established Crown Office in Scotland, and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland. The CPS is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (currently Keir Starmer QC) who answers to the Attor
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (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 some
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And no I did not read the article. It was locked behin
Re:the sum is greater than its parts. (Score:4, Funny)
Presidents.
Precidents live in the Wighthouse.
Parent
Re: (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.