Legal Issues

by Eric Goldman


Filed Under:
anti-slapp, defamation, dictionary, law, texas

Companies:
wikipedia



Texas Supreme Court Is Skeptical About Wikipedia As A Dictionary

from the the-things-courts-debate dept

This is an interesting opinion from the Texas Supreme Court on citing Wikipedia as a dictionary. The underlying case involves an article in D Magazine titled "The Park Cities Welfare Queen." The article purports to show that the plaintiff, Rosenthal, "has figured out how to get food stamps while living in the lap of luxury." After publication, evidence emerged that the plaintiff had not committed welfare fraud. She sued the magazine for defamation.

The appeals court denied the magazine's anti-SLAPP motion in part because it held the term "Welfare Queen," as informed by the Wikipedia entry, could be defamatory. The Texas Supreme Court affirms the anti-SLAPP denial, but it also criticizes the appeals court for not sufficiently examining the entire article's gist. Along the way, the court opines on the credibility and validity of Wikipedia as a dictionary. TL;DR = the Supreme Court says don't treat Wikipedia like a dictionary.

Apologies for the block quoting, but here's the detail:

Wikipedia is a self-described "online open-content collaborative encyclopedia." Wikipedia: General Disclaimer, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer (last visited Mar. 13, 2017). This means that, except in certain cases to prevent disruption or vandalism, anyone can write and make changes to Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia: About, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About (last visited Mar. 13, 2017). Volunteer editors can submit content as registered members or anonymously. Id. Each time an editor modifies content, the editor's identity or IP address and a summary of the modification, including a time stamp, become available on the article's "history" tab. Jason C. Miller & Hannah B. Murray, Wikipedia in Court: When and How Citing Wikipedia and Other Consensus Websites Is Appropriate, 84 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 633, 637 (2010). Wikipedia is one of the largest reference websites in the world, with over "70,000 active contributors working on more than 41,000,000 articles in 294 languages." Wikipedia: About, supra.

References to Wikipedia in judicial opinions began in 2004 and have increased each year, although such references are still included in only a small percentage of opinions. Jodi L. Wilson, Proceed with Extreme Caution: Citation to Wikipedia in Light of Contributor Demographics and Content Policies, 16 VAND. J. ENT. & TECH. L. 857, 868 (2014). These cites often relate to nondispositive matters or are included in string citations. But, some courts "have taken judicial notice of Wikipedia content, based their reasoning on Wikipedia entries, and decided dispositive motions on the basis of Wikipedia content." Lee F. Peoples, The Citation of Wikipedia in Judicial Opinions, 12 YALE J. L. & TECH. 1, 3 (2009–2010). While there has been extensive research on Wikipedia's accuracy, "the results are mixed—some studies show it is just as good as the experts, [while] others show Wikipedia is not accurate at all." Michael Blanding, Wikipedia or Encyclopædia Britannica: Which Has More Bias?, FORBES (Jan. 20, 2015), http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaediabritannica-which-has-more-bias/#5c254ac51ccf.

Any court reliance on Wikipedia may understandably raise concerns because of "the impermanence of Wikipedia content, which can be edited by anyone at any time, and the dubious quality of the information found on Wikipedia." Peoples, supra at 3. Cass Sunstein, legal scholar and professor at Harvard Law School, also warns that judges' use of Wikipedia "might introduce opportunistic editing." Noam Cohen, Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 29, 2007), http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/ 29wikipedia.html. The Fifth Circuit has similarly warned against using Wikipedia in judicial opinions, agreeing "with those courts that have found Wikipedia to be an unreliable source of information" and advising "against any improper reliance on it or similarly unreliable internet sources in the future." Bing Shun Li v. Holder, 400 F. App'x 854, 857 (5th Cir. 2010); accord Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910–11 (8th Cir. 2008).

For others in the legal community, however, Wikipedia is a valuable resource. Judge Richard Posner has said that "Wikipedia is a terrific resource … because it [is] so convenient, it often has been updated recently and is very accurate." Cohen, supra. However, Judge Posner also noted that it "wouldn't be right to use it in a critical issue." Id. Other scholars agree that Wikipedia is most appropriate for "soft facts," when courts want to provide context to help make their opinions more readable. Id. Moreover, because Wikipedia is constantly updated, some argue that it can be "a good source for definitions of new slang terms, for popular culture references, and for jargon and lingo including computer and technology terms." Peoples, supra at 31. They also argue that open-source tools like Wikipedia may be useful when courts are trying to determine public perception or community norms. Id. at 32. This usefulness is lessened, however, by the recognition that Wikipedia contributors do not necessarily represent a cross-section of society, as research has shown that they are overwhelmingly male, under forty years old, and living outside of the United States. Wilson, supra at 885–89.

Given the arguments both for and against reliance on Wikipedia, as well as the variety of ways in which the source may be utilized, a bright-line rule is untenable. Of the many concerns expressed about Wikipedia use, lack of reliability is paramount and may often preclude its use as a source of authority in opinions. At the least, we find it unlikely Wikipedia could suffice as the sole source of authority on an issue of any significance to a case. That said, Wikipedia can often be useful as a starting point for research purposes. See Peoples, supra at 28 ("Selectively using Wikipedia for … minor points in an opinion is an economical use of judges' and law clerks' time."). In this case, for example, the cited Wikipedia page itself cited past newspaper and magazine articles that had used the term "welfare queen" in various contexts and could help shed light on how a reasonable person could construe the term.

However, the court of appeals utilized Wikipedia as its primary source to ascribe a specific, narrow definition to a single term that the court found significantly influenced the article's gist. Essentially, the court used the Wikipedia definition as the lynchpin of its analysis on a critical issue. As a result, the court narrowly read the term "welfare queen" to necessarily implicate fraudulent or illegal conduct, while other sources connote a broader common meaning. See, e.g., Oxford Living Dictionaries, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/welfare_queen (last visited Mar. 13, 2017) (broadly defining "welfare queen" as a "woman perceived to be living in luxury on benefits obtained by exploiting or defrauding the welfare system"); YourDictionary, http://www.yourdictionary.com/welfare-queen (last visited Mar. 13, 2017) (broadly defining "welfare queen" as a "woman collecting welfare, seen as doing so out of laziness, rather than genuine need"). In addition, and independent of the Wikipedia concerns, the court of appeals' overwhelming emphasis on a single term in determining the article's gist departed from our jurisprudential mandate to evaluate the publication as a whole rather than focus on individual statements.

A concurring opinion by Justice Guzman amplifies the concerns (FNs omitted):

Wikipedia has many strengths and benefits, but reliance on unverified, crowd-generated information to support judicial rulings is unwise. Mass-edited collaborative resources, like Wikipedia, are malleable by design, raising serious concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the information, the expertise and credentials of the contributors, and the potential for manipulation and bias. In an age when news about "fake news" has become commonplace, long-standing concerns about the validity of information obtained from "consensus websites" like Wikipedia are not merely the antiquated musings of luddites. To the contrary, as current events punctuate with clarity, courts must remain vigilant in guarding against undue reliance on sources of dubious reliability. A collaborative encyclopedia that may be anonymously and continuously edited undoubtedly fits the bill.

Legal commentators may debate whether and to what extent courts could properly rely on online sources like Wikipedia, but the most damning indictment of Wikipedia's authoritative force comes directly from Wikipedia:

  • "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY"
  • "Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information."
  • "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here."
  • "Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed."
  • "[A]ll information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever."
  • "Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them."
  • Indeed, "Wikipedia's radical openness means that any given article may be, at any given moment, in a bad state: for example, it could be in the middle of a large edit or it could have been recently vandalized." Even if expeditiously remediated, transient errors are not always obvious to the casual reader. As Wikipedia states more pointedly, "Wikipedia is a wiki, which means that anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize. Thus, you probably shouldn't be citing Wikipedia."

    Apart from these candid self-assessments, which no doubt apply with equal force to other online sources and encyclopedias, a more pernicious evil lurks—"opportunistic editing." Because "[a]nyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles" and "can contribute anonymously, [or] under a pseudonym," reliance on Wikipedia as an authoritative source for judicial decision-making incentivizes self-interested manipulation. Case in point: a Utah court of appeals recently described how the Wikipedia definition of "jet ski" provided "stronger support" for one of the parties in a subsequent appeal than it had when considered by the court in the parties' previous appeal. The court observed the difficulty of discerning whether the change was instigated by the court's prior opinion, perhaps "at the instance of someone with a stake in the debate."

    Still, some have argued Wikipedia is "a good source for definitions of new slang terms, for popular culture references, and for jargon and lingo including computer and technology terms." Perhaps, but not necessarily. While Wikipedia's "openly editable" model may be well suited to capturing nuances and subtle shifts in linguistic meaning, there is no assurance that any particular definition actually represents the commonly understood meaning of a term that may be central to a legal inquiry. In truth, Wikipedia's own policies disclaim the notion: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide." Whatever merit there may be to crowdsourcing the English language, Wikipedia simply lacks the necessary safeguards to prevent abuse and assure the level of certainty and validity typically required to sustain a judgment in a legal proceeding.

    Take, for example, the Wikipedia entry for "welfare queen," which was first created in November 2006 by the user Chalyres. Since the entry was first drafted, 239 edits have been made by 146 users. But there is no reliable way to determine whether these edits (1) deleted or added accurate information, (2) deleted or added false or biased information, (3) were made by individuals with expertise on the term's usage, or (4) were made by individuals actually representative of the community.

    As a court, one of our "chief functions" is "to act as an animated and authoritative dictionary." In that vein, we are routinely called upon to determine the common meaning of words and phrases in contracts, statutes, and other legal documents. Though we often consult dictionaries in discharging our duty, rarely, if ever, is one source alone sufficient to fulfill the task. To that end, I acknowledge that Wikipedia may be useful as a "starting point for serious research," but it must never be considered "an endpoint," at least in judicial proceedings.

    Wikipedia's valuable role in today's technological society cannot be denied. Our society benefits from the fast, free, and easily-accessible information it provides. A wealth of information is now available at the touch of a few key strokes, and a community of Wikipedia editors serves to increase the accuracy and truth of that information, promoting the public good through those efforts. However, in my view, Wikipedia properly serves the judiciary only as a compendium—a source for sources—and not as authority for any disputed, dispositive, or legally consequential matter.

    To punctuate her skepticism, Justice Guzman's concurrence displays this screenshot:

    In a footnote, you can almost hear a sneer as she characterizes the screenshot as "Screenshot of unsaved edits to Welfare Queen." NB: Wikipedia is trivially easy to edit, but getting those edits to stick is an entirely different matter.

    My Thoughts

    It makes sense not to treat Wikipedia as the authoritative citation source. However, I would make the same declaration about many sources, crowd-sourced or not. Often, a range of sources is required to establish a "fact."

    We especially see the trickiness of treating a single dictionary as an authoritative source, because there are often subtle but crucial differences in dictionaries' definitions of the same term. Indeed, Wikipedia self-acknowledges its limits as a dictionary. In contrast, sometimes Wikipedia is an OK citation for the zeitgeist about an issue, where the citation is for the ranges of issues rather than for the truth of any issue.

    I was a little surprised that the court didn't discuss the Urban Dictionary as an alternative to Wikipedia as a dictionary (it comes up only in a reference in a footnote in Justice Guzman's opinion). What I like about Urban Dictionary is that it doesn't purport to offer a single definition of any term. Instead, it lists a range of definitions ordered by crowd-sourced voting. In my experience, the Urban Dictionary often fills in the gaps in my "street lingo" much better than any other source, so long as I use it advisedly.

    I'm paying closer attention to courts' citations to online dictionaries based on my research for my Emojis and the Law paper. As bad as things are between Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary as online dictionaries, things are much worse with emojis because no credible dictionary is trying to provide definitive definitions of emojis. Eventually, as I'll argue in my paper, we'll need the equivalent of an Urban Dictionary for emojis to capture their disparate meanings across online subcommunities.

    Republished from Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Law Blog


    Reader Comments

    Subscribe: RSS

    View by: Time | Thread


    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2017 @ 3:20pm

      Urban Dictionary is a good example as you mentioned and has precedent.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/business/media/urban-dictionary-finds-a-place-in-the-cou rtroom.html

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JoeCool (profile), 12 Apr 2017 @ 4:04pm

      Unreliable?

      I'd trust it over the FBI labs any day.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2017 @ 4:08pm

      WHAT!!!! And here I thought EVERYTHING I see on the internet is TRUE!!!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2017 @ 4:27pm

      Personally, I have never given Wikipedia any serious praise due to the fact the majority of content found in their articles are unverified information, arbitrarily retconned by idiot moderators who abuse their powers. Fact is, Wikipedia shouldn't be openly edited by anyone who accesses any page on their site.

      I run an anime website and community and I actually have a ban on members citing Wikipedia as a valid source of information when it comes to news on the anime and manga industry. Wikipedia is just not a trusted source of information.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2017 @ 4:54pm

      I think of Wikipedia far more as a online open source encyclopedia, NOT a dictionary. They are 2 different things.

      As Open source, they can be 99.9% true to 1% true. Mostly made up crap. Fake News. For a court to use Wikipedia as it's source is a joke.

      As for the "Welfare Queen". That person should be thrown into jail for fraud at the very least. 100% of the money paid back, and a big fine. The tax payers are being screwed out of money. So are the people that really need the money. When I say NEED, I mean those with a real NEED, not people sitting on their butts playing on the game console all day long. Or those with fake medical reasons, and so on.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2017 @ 6:30pm

        Re:

        As for the "Welfare Queen". That person should be thrown into jail for fraud at the very least.

        Despite the evidence showing she did not commit fraud?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Apr 2017 @ 2:22pm

        Fake medical reasons

        Who here is determining whether or not a given medical reason is fake?

        Considering how the DoJ has a hard time determining innocence, the notion of creating a sufficiently impartial review panel is dubious.

        In my line of work, I see a lot of disabled people who, themselves, see a lot of disabled people, and it is curious how often we encounter someone who believes my disability is real, but everyone else's is fake.

        Curiously there's a similar problem with abortions, where abortion is immoral, except my own

        Statistically, welfare fraud is rare, and we lose more money trying to find it and investigate it than we do from the fraud itself.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2017 @ 5:19pm

      Of course Wikipedia isn't a reliable dictionary. It's an encyclopedia.

      [Wiktionary](https://www.wiktionary.org/) is a dictionary!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Christenson, 12 Apr 2017 @ 7:10pm

      Emojis! ;->

      Dang, how do I sort those little pictures, lol! ;-) (and BTW, I hate the set on Facebook -- I'd rather draw word pictures!)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      My_Name_Here, 12 Apr 2017 @ 9:25pm

      Wikipedia was paid off by Google to protest SOPA. Frankly, I would encourage any court of law to be skeptical of Wikipedia.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2017 @ 11:28pm

        Re:

        Wow that is impressively wrong. Google was one of the later ones to join the SOPA protests for one - 'paying them off' after they already decided to do it on their own makes about as much sense as trying to bribe Martin Luther King to support civil rights.

        Even if all of that garbage you claimed was true has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of user curated articles.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 13 Apr 2017 @ 1:11am

        Re:

        As ever, citation needed.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2017 @ 6:20am

        Re:

        I do believe you are sexually aroused by being wrong. It's the only possible rational reason you persist in being demonstrably, utterly at odds with reality.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 13 Apr 2017 @ 1:11am

      "Texas Supreme Court Is Skeptical About Wikipedia As A Dictionary"

      ....because it's intended to be an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Hell, they even have a separate site for their dictionary - https://www.wiktionary.org/

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        JEDIDIAH, 13 Apr 2017 @ 9:27am

        Doesn't matter what you call it or who the gatekeeper is...

        I'm surprised no one has brought up our old middle school experiences of being told not to use an encyclopedia as a single source for a research project. The courts are (or rather should be) a much more rigorous environment than a pre-teen research project.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Digitari, 13 Apr 2017 @ 6:54am

      Point of Order..

      Does anyone else see the margins of this story as being off, I use Chrome Browser and the right side is missing. ( the later stories format correctly )

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


    Add Your Comment

    Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
    Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
    Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
      Save me a cookie
    Follow Techdirt
    Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

    Advertisement
    Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
    Essential Reading
    Techdirt Deals
    Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
    Techdirt Insider Chat
    Advertisement
    Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
    Recent Stories
    Advertisement
    Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

    Close

    Email This

    This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.