On 25 October 2010 14:23, Srikanth Ramakrishnan <rsrikant...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wikipedia can be quoted only if the text being quoted has been backed by a
> verified, reliable reference. Thus, the authenticity of the content depends
> on the reference. In this case, if the SC is referring to Wiki, it should
> have a ref behind it. If we can zero in on WHAT they have quoted and WHICH
> article it comes from, we can maybe give the article more reliability, (if
> it doesn't) .

I'm pretty sure this is the page referenced:

Two things to note:

1. I agree with the criticism that the Judge could have cited it
better, after all, it is possible to cite a particular page version
and that will never change.
2. I do not agree with the criticism that because it is Wikipedia it
is inherently less reliable because it can be edited. That is a
fundamental mistake in saying what is printed is better than what is
editable and changeable.
3. I am curious as to why they are arguing the source rather than the
facts - was what was cited wrong in law? And that is criticism that
can be leveled at printed works too - at the Times of India too.
4. As with all sources, check your facts and mistakes and omissions do happen.
5. I'm also curious as to how the media have established that the case
was based on a Wikipedia article. A little much exaggeration, IMHO.

Thank you.



Wikimediaindia-l mailing list

Reply via email to