Filipino Gov't Loses Court Case Because It Relied On Wikipedia

from the but-was-the-info-accurate? dept

A few years back, we discussed whether or not it was appropriate for judges to cite Wikipedia, noting that some were against the idea. Now, Slashdot points us to a case over in the Philippines, where the Filipino government has lost a recent lawsuit, in large part due to relying on Wikipedia to counter claims, rather than bringing in an expert witness.

However, what’s odd, is that the judge in the case seems upset about the use of Wikipedia itself, with no specific attempt to determine if the citation was accurate or credible. It appears that the government was really using Wikipedia to call up the infamous psychologists’ bible DSM-IV, in order to explore whether or not one of the participants in the case had a real personality disorder. While citing Wikipedia might not be the wisest of decisions, it still seems a bit harsh to dismiss it entirely because of the source, without any effort to determine if the content itself was legitimate.

Filed Under: ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Filipino Gov't Loses Court Case Because It Relied On Wikipedia”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
New Mexico Mark says:

Would a medical manual excerpt have been treated differently?

I’m not a legal expert, but it seems that presenting evidence which normally requires expert interpretation (like medical conclusions) would require an expert witness. This also allows for cross examination of the expert witness to see why they reached their conclusions.

The judge seems more upset by the laziness of the OSG in failing to produce a real expert witness than by the particular source cited. If the OSG had done another whole 30 seconds of “research” online and had quoted a more authoritative source, I’m not sure the results would have been much better.

JackSombra (profile) says:

As mark pointed out, court seemed more annoyed about the laziness of the Gov. than the source of the information.

As for dismissing because of the source, the source was discredited in big bold letters by their own disclaimer:

Because of this, anything on Wikipedia is and should be basically on the same level of “hearsay” as far as courts are concerned and dismissed out of hand.

It’s not the courts job to investigate if the content is legitimate, it’s the prosecuting/defending parties job to prove to the judge that it is and that disclaimer (even without knowledge of how Wikipedia works) makes that impossible.

Wikipedia can be a starting point for research/investigation but if you are going to use the information, dig deeper and go direct to the sources

Freak says:

. . .for mental health issues, I agree entirely with the judge.

In psychology, a lot of things are a matter of scale; Anyone remember the slashdot incident where every poster thought they had asperger’s from the symptoms list?

In this case, i would think you would certainly need an expert witness to recognize which symptoms the patient actually displays to the extent intended by the DSM-IV

Anonymous Coward says:

Without knowing the particulars, it is generally the job of the attorney to perform tasks like authentication. The attorney for the moving party generally bears the burden for that, so if they were unable to provide what the court needed, the court was probably right in its action. It probably isn?t the judge’s job to establish anything here, or further explore anything.

Anonymous Coward says:

Mike Masnick said:

“While citing Wikipedia might not be the wisest of decisions, it still seems a bit harsh to dismiss it entirely because of the source, without any effort to determine if the content itself was legitimate.

That’s what expert witnesses are for, Mike. Without an expert witness all you have here is the Filipino government citing a website (which anyone can edit) which is in turn citing the DSM which is aimed at experts in psychology who interpret the text and apply it to specific cases as they see fit. Wikipedia is no substitute for an expert witness, and it’s not even a primary source. The use of Wikipedia in a court of law is therefore entirely inappropriate.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...