- This topic has 3 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
We all know that just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true – especially if it's posted on Wikipedia where anyone can make edits. That risk, however, is balanced by Wikipedia's strength – the breadth of information contained therein, as suspect as it might be. Is it a surprise to find that jurors had consulted Wikipedia to look up terms related to a murder trial in Maryland?
Last week, the Court of Special Appeals voided the 2008 first-degree murder conviction of Allan Jake Clark, accused of beating a man to death in 2007.In the jury room, a bailiff in the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court trial had found printouts of Wikipedia explanations of scientific terms....Particularly important was that the Wikipedia definitions discussed details of how the settling of blood after death can help determine the time and place of death - which were issues at Clark's trial.
I must admit that Wikipedia is awesome for finding information on obscure terms when more than a dictionary definition is desired. I sometimes use the information for background material to help me familiarize myself with topics. At the same time, I am uneasy when the very wheels of justice hinge on the accuracy of a publicly-editable database.
Wikipedia is great to get familiar with a topic, but I would hate to think that my conviction for murder hinged on a wikipedia article. The Appeals court was absolutely right to void the conviction.I have commented on both the usefulness and ills of wikipedia at length elsewhere.
Wikipedia is great to get familiar with a topic, but I would hate to think that my conviction for murder hinged on a wikipedia article. The Appeals court was absolutely right to void the conviction.
I promise that if you ever face a life sentence or worse, I will edit Wikipedia so the facts fall in your favor...just in case the jurors based their decisions on it. ;D
