Citing to Wikipedia
Fresh off the New York Times article on judicial citations to Wikipedia, Dan Solove poses the question when can we cite to Wikipedia. He gives eight real-life examples, which cover a pretty broad range of likely citation situations. My take on each of them:
1. From 59 Stan. L. Rev. 257, in a footnote: “For an overview of the use of modification or “mod” software in computer gaming, see generally Mod (Computer Gaming), WIKIPEDIA, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_%28computer_gaming%29.”
I think this is the perfect situation for a Wikipedia cite. If I wanted a general overview if this use of the term “mod,” I’d go to Wikipedia. Why should I direct readers somewhere else? This works particularly well because, even if the actual text on the page changes, that page will always (barring extreme vandalism, which is almost always very short-lived) provide a good overview. It may even improve over time.
2. From 116 Yale L.J. 226, in a footnote: “Between 1965 and 1974, the government of Sweden, a nation of roughly 4 million households, supervised the construction of 1 million housing units (the “Million Programme”), a majority of which were subsidized apartments. See Christopher Caldwell, Islam on the Outskirts of the Welfare State, N.Y. Times Mag., Feb. 5, 2006, at 55, 56; Wikipedia, Million Programme, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme (last visited Sept. 1, 2006).”
This one makes no sense to me. You’ve cited to the Times article, which is surely more authoritative than Wikipedia. In addition, since the program ended in 1974, surely there’s historical primary or secondary source material available.
3. From 41 Ga. L. Rev. 1, in a footnote: “Spyware is malicious software that takes control of a user’s computer for the benefit of a third party and can be used to surreptitiously monitor the user’s online activity. Wikipedia, Spyware, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyware (last visited Aug. 25, 2006).”
Again, if I weren’t familiar with the term “Spyware,” this is where I’d go to look it up. I would consider the Wikipedia page more authoritative on this subject than a newspaper article or some other law review article, which are the other likely cites to support this point.
4. From 10 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 673, in a footnote: “For example, after premature and unverifiable claims of cold fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann were discredited, both Pons and Fleischmann were driven from their academic positions. See, e.g., Wikipedia, Stanley Pons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Pons (last visited Apr. 11, 2006) (noting that both Pons and Fleischmann moved to France and accepted jobs for the Toyota Corporation after their cold fusion work was discredited).”
I have to believe there’s a better (though probably not easier to find) source for this. There must at least be contemporary media coverage of the event.
5. From 4 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 223, in the text: “Ridgway, the most prolific serial killer in American history, pleaded guilty to forty-eight charges of aggravated first degree murder. King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng then congratulated himself: ‘This agreement was the avenue to the truth. And in the end, the search for the truth is still why we have a criminal justice system.’ [FN]” From the footnote: “See Wikipedia entry on Gary Ridgway, at http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway (last visited Mar. 23, 2006).”
This is perhaps the worst of the lot. If I’m quoting the prosecutor, I want to at least get that from a newspaper account. If this quote can’t be found anywhere but Wikipedia, it’s almost certainly spurious. Also, quoting text from Wikipedia is always problematic since it won’t necessarily be around when someone goes to verify it.
6. From 37 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 753, in a footnote: “Ebert & Roeper gives a “Thumbs Up” (favorable review) or a “Thumbs Down” (unfavorable review). Wikipedia: Ebert & Roeper, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebert_&_ Roeper (last visited Feb. 6, 2006).”
This is the sort of generally known fact that is the bane of research assistants and law review editors everywhere. If we really need a cite for this (and I’m not such a hardcore law review guy as to believe we do), Wikipedia is probably the best combination of ease of search (the only thing worse than requiring a footnote for this fact is spending several hours of someone’s time tracking down the source) and reliability.
7. From 79 S. Cal. L. Rev. 945, defining the term “netizen”: “See Wikipedia, Netizen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netizen (last visited May 19, 2006). A Netizen (a portmanteau of Internet and citizen), also known as a cybercitizen, is a person actively involved in online communities for the purpose of giving and receiving viewpoints, furnishing information, fostering the Internet as an intellectual and a social resource, and making choices for self-assembled communities. See id.”
Again, quoting Wikipedia text is problematic, but, for to define this kind of term, I’m hard-pressed to think of a better source.
8. From 115 Yale L.J. 1699, in the text: “So perhaps he won’t take offense if I call him a bricoleur, defined by Wikipedia as “a person who creates things from scratch, is creative and resourceful: a person who collects information and things and then puts them together in a way that they were not originally designed to do. [FN]” From the footnote: “Bricolage, in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricolage (last visited Dec. 7, 2005).”
As others have pointed out, this isn’t an unusual term. It’s in the OED. Why not quote that definition instead? Netizen is also in the OED, but I’d trust Wikipedia’s definition to be more in tune with actual usage. It takes 30 years or so to put out an edition of the OED, so it’s bound to get stale for terms whose usage changes quickly.
Also, my guess is that the people who complain about Wikipedia’s accuracy don’t use it much. I wouldn’t use it to understand the holding of a Supreme Court case, but for everyday facts and technology-related terms, it’s excellent and extremely reliable.
