Law Practice
Jul. 2, 2013
Crowd sourcing as a source?
In recent years, lawyers and judges have cited Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary to define everything from Buddhism to "booty music." Few have examined whether it is legally proper to do so.
2nd Appellate District, Division 2
Brian M. Hoffstadt
Associate Justice
California Court of Appeal
UCLA School of Law, 1995
In recent years, lawyers and judges have cited Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) and Urban Dictionary (www.urbandictionary.com) to define everything from Buddhism to "booty music." Few have examined whether it is legally proper to do so.
Encyclopedias and dictionaries have long been viewed as appropriate sources, but Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary are different in one crucial respect: They are "crowd sourced." An authority is crowd sourced when its content is based on a group's collect...For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In