4 ms·
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 -
by the_af 4y ago
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!
- Spooky23 4y agoJudges 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.
- the_af 4y agoAgreed. But that's not about the quality of the articles themselves, and certainly not about their references!
- RickJWagner 4y agoYou're close to an important issue, I think. False ideas can be spread simply by overemphasizing biased true statements and disregarding true statements that don't fit the narrative. The effect can be multiplied by controlling the discussion through selecting the right 'questions' that are discussed. Snopes is the exemplar.