3 ms·
Who wrote that analysis? I'm aware that the answer is "I don't know" and "likely several people", but that's my point. It's less reliable than a random comment
by forapurpose 9y ago
Who wrote that analysis? I'm aware that the answer is "I don't know" and "likely several people", but that's my point. It's less reliable than a random comment on HN. Wikipedia is good for some things, but an analysis of research on the Japanese legal system isn't one of them (IMHO).
- mikekchar 9y agoThe analysis is in the paper, so I know exactly who wrote it :-). You can check that the summary is correct by reading the paper.
- forapurpose 9y agoSo we agree: HN readers can't rely on the Wikipedia excerpt. :-)
- mikekchar 9y agoI feel a bit like I'm being trolled, but just to close the gap between our positions, that's exactly the point of my original post: you need to look up the primary sources so that you can tell if the spin is accurate. It was never my intention to suggest that Wikipedia is more or less trustworthy than any other random site on the internet. Rather, because both sites reference the same study and come to exactly opposite conclusions, it's a good indication that you should read the original paper. It is my opinion that the Wikipedia article in this case is considerably more accurate than the original linked article. I'm not quite sure how the original article came to the conclusion they did, unless they were being intentionally misleading, to be completely honest. Again, I highly recommend reading the paper if you are interested in making your own conclusion.
- forapurpose 9y ago> I feel a bit like I'm being trolled Sorry, not my intent at all.