So, I had a look at articles for creation today, and there was nearly 1,000
pending article submissions. Articles for creation has changed a lot since 2008
- it was of a similar structure to XFD - all submissions for a particular day
were on one page, and people could come along and approve or
On 8/17/2012 7:36 AM, Steven Zhang wrote:
So, I had a look at articles for creation today, and there was nearly 1,000
pending article submissions. Articles for creation has changed a lot since 2008
- it was of a similar structure to XFD - all submissions for a particular day
were on one page,
On 17 August 2012 12:36, Steven Zhang cro0...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I had a look at articles for creation today, and there was nearly 1,000
pending article submissions. Articles for creation has changed a lot since
2008 - it was of a similar structure to XFD - all submissions for a
On 17/08/2012 12:36, Steven Zhang wrote:
So, I had a look at articles for creation today, and there was nearly 1,000
pending article submissions. Articles for creation has changed a lot since 2008
- it was of a similar structure to XFD - all submissions for a particular day
were on one page,
I've collected a few of these over the years, in preparation for an article
I've never found the time to write ... here's another example from earlier
this year where the majority and dissenting opinions differ over
the propriety of a Wikipedia citaiton:
In the concurring opinion, Judge Voros says that getting a sense of
the common usage or ordinary and plain meaning of a contract term is
precisely the purpose for which the lead opinion here cites Wikipedia.
Our reliance on this source is therefore, in my judgment,
appropriate.
On this, he is
I didn't realize it until just now, but we (En-WP) have articles about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_judicial_opinions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_court_source
These clearly need to be updated, but might be of interest.
Also of note, albeit
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
In the court's opinion judicial notice was not taken, but information
obtained about common usage of the term, jet ski, used in the insurance
contract. Judicial notice seems to be out of bounds under some reasoning;
- Original Message -
From: Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] on citing Wikipedia in U.S. court opinions
(Caution: the facts of the case are unpleasant.)
Unpleasant is
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
And the best post I've found on the current case:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/16/citing-wikipedia-in-court-opinions/
Am I missing something? That's just a cut and paste of the concurring
opinion and a paragraph of the
In the concurring opinion, Judge Voros says that getting a sense of
the common usage or ordinary and plain meaning of a contract term is
precisely the purpose for which the lead opinion here cites Wikipedia.
Our reliance on this source is therefore, in my judgment,
appropriate.
On this, he
11 matches
Mail list logo
