The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)

[eggman]

Reliability of Wikipedia
Are you or were you thinking about citing Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, in your memo, essay, report, or not to mention in your legal document, such as a brief? Hm, take a moment and think twice.

A New Jersey judge who allowed a lawyer to plug an evidentiary gap with a Wikipedia page has been reversed on the ground that the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" is not a reliable source of information.

As stated in the ruling of Palisades Collection, L.L.C. v. Graubard, No. L-3394-06, 2009 WL 1025176 (N.J. Super. A.D. April 17, 2009),



t is entirely possible for a party in litigation to alter a Wikipedia article, print the "article and thereafter offer it in support of any given position," an appeals court held. "Such a malleable source of information is inherently unreliable and clearly not one 'whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned," such as would support judicial notice under New Jersey Evidence Rule 201(b)(3).    Just one of many I would say you won if you did

[NathanCanadas]

Just wanted that there are much less mistakes per article on wikipedia than there is on Wolfram Alpha, Encyclopedia Britannica etc. But anyways this is a generalization, and it is ridiculous IMO although I am atheist.

[Don Boyer]

There are some people, if they do not know, you just can not tell them. I will not bother posting proper resources. as I am getting tired of this thread. Time to discuss cards. Do some research on Wikepedia itself and you will learn a lot.

It's easier to just say 'OK, you win', you know.

...and BOOM goes the dynamite! 

Reliability of Wikipedia
Are you or were you thinking about citing Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, in your memo, essay, report, or not to mention in your legal document, such as a brief? Hm, take a moment and think twice.

A New Jersey judge who allowed a lawyer to plug an evidentiary gap with a Wikipedia page has been reversed on the ground that the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" is not a reliable source of information.

As stated in the ruling of Palisades Collection, L.L.C. v. Graubard, No. L-3394-06, 2009 WL 1025176 (N.J. Super. A.D. April 17, 2009),



t is entirely possible for a party in litigation to alter a Wikipedia article, print the "article and thereafter offer it in support of any given position," an appeals court held. "Such a malleable source of information is inherently unreliable and clearly not one 'whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned," such as would support judicial notice under New Jersey Evidence Rule 201(b)(3).    Just one of many I would say you won if you did

You're quoting a legal precedent from three years ago.

I'm not presenting evidence at trial, and Wikipedia's standards for writing and editing articles have become a lot more professional, particularly when the articles deal with well-known public figures - I can't run over to the Britney Spears Wikipedia article and add information about what venereal diseases she may or may not be spreading, and neither can most of the world.  I'm certain the Catholic Church gave that article a fine examination.

The only thing truly "malleable" about a Wikipedia article on a famous person is that it's not written in a book.  All articles either come with citations as to fact origins or are noted as lacking such citations and that the article is under review.  This article is NOT under review.  If you look at the bottom of the article, one of the sources used to write it was a book WRITTEN BY POPE BENEDICT XVI several years before he was elevated to Pope.  If you're not willing to take the Pope's own word, who are you willing to trust?