Posted by Eugene Volokh:
More Wikipedia Law,
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_02_08-2009_02_14.shtml#1234384628
from last year, in [1]Gagliardi v. Commissioner (Tax Court=):
Respondent attempted to discredit Dr. Pike by claiming her
definition of �gambler�s fallacy� was incorrect. Respondent relies
on a definition of �gambler�s fallacy� he obtained from Wikipedia.
Respondent did not call any witness, or expert witness, to counter
Dr. Pike�s conclusions. Respondent�s reliance on a definition of
�gambler�s fallacy� found in Wikipedia[18] is not persuasive. Dr.
Pike and Mr. Nicely, a second expert witness whose testimony and
opinions are discussed in greater detail infra, credibly explained
that there is a difference in the definition of �gambler�s fallacy�
depending on the field of study -- e.g., psychology versus
mathematics. We find Dr. Pike to be credible and rely on her expert
opinion.
[Footnote 18:] Although we conclude that the information respondent
obtained from Wikipedia was not wholly reliable and not persuasive
in the instant case, we make no findings regarding the reliability,
persuasiveness, or use of Wikipedia in general.
References
1. http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/GAGLIARDI.TCM.WPD.pdf
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
