> 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 grossly mistaken. A Wikipedia entry may reflect the > common usage. Most of the time, for most entries, it probably does. > On the other hand, it may not. And an appeals court judge shouldn't > be digging through the edit history to figure out which one it is. > This type of analysis should, if at all, be done by an expert witness, > who could be cross examined by the opposing counsel. > > As it stands, all the Wikipedia entry showed was that at one point one > person wrote what happened to appear there at the time when it was > accessed.
Sometimes we have some strange name from British English or whatever that someone thinks is the "correct" name, totally divorced from popular usage. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
