http://bciptf.org/blog/2006/08/30/bluebook-citation-to-wikipedia/ Blogging by the Intellectual Property & Technology Forum & Journal at BC Law Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:52:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 http://bciptf.org/blog/2006/08/30/bluebook-citation-to-wikipedia/#comment-49703 Chris Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:54:21 +0000 http://bciptf.org/blog/2006/08/30/bluebook-citation-to-wikipedia/#comment-49703 This is a great entry. There is at least one narrow area of law where proper citation to Wikipedia is extremely important. In trademark prosecution, you often have to look for evidence of how a word or phrase is understood by the general public. Wikipedia has specifically been allowed as a source of evidence on that issue, both for prosecutors and the government examiners (it's probative value is constantly questioned, but it's not rejected out of hand). This is a great entry. There is at least one narrow area of law where proper citation to Wikipedia is extremely important. In trademark prosecution, you often have to look for evidence of how a word or phrase is understood by the general public. Wikipedia has specifically been allowed as a source of evidence on that issue, both for prosecutors and the government examiners (it’s probative value is constantly questioned, but it’s not rejected out of hand).

]]> http://bciptf.org/blog/2006/08/30/bluebook-citation-to-wikipedia/#comment-33145 Michelle Sun, 20 May 2007 00:18:07 +0000 http://bciptf.org/blog/2006/08/30/bluebook-citation-to-wikipedia/#comment-33145 Good site - you're a pretty good writer..... Very creative... Good site - you’re a pretty good writer….. Very creative…

]]> http://bciptf.org/blog/2006/08/30/bluebook-citation-to-wikipedia/#comment-18949 BC Law IPTF Blog » Blog Archive » Techdirt: Should Judges Cite Wikipedia? Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:20:20 +0000 http://bciptf.org/blog/2006/08/30/bluebook-citation-to-wikipedia/#comment-18949 [...] This issue could be helped by using the Harvard suggestion for citing Wikipedia. The Harvard citation format requires one to cite to the time in the article’s history that you are citing. By clicking on the history tab at the top of an article, one may then navigate to the actual text that the clerk has cited. (Also, maybe it shouldn’t be that “judges” are citing Wikipedia, as much as their law clerks are.) The deeper issue is that encylopedic knowledge is harder to find and less trustworthy than it used to be–back when we had no other “better” option.  Other than Wikipedia, my best bets are Encarta or Britannica (both of which charge for usage) or the Columbia Encyclopedia. But none are as exhaustive as Wikipedia. [...] […] This issue could be helped by using the Harvard suggestion for citing Wikipedia. The Harvard citation format requires one to cite to the time in the article’s history that you are citing. By clicking on the history tab at the top of an article, one may then navigate to the actual text that the clerk has cited. (Also, maybe it shouldn’t be that “judges” are citing Wikipedia, as much as their law clerks are.) The deeper issue is that encylopedic knowledge is harder to find and less trustworthy than it used to be–back when we had no other “better” option.  Other than Wikipedia, my best bets are Encarta or Britannica (both of which charge for usage) or the Columbia Encyclopedia. But none are as exhaustive as Wikipedia. […]

]]>