Court: No, Wikipedia Doesn't Count As Evidence.

from JoeUser Forums

Ah, Wikipedia. Savior of internet debaters and bane of those who try to set themselves in a positive light against the connected masses. And now, apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is relying on it to reinforce their own legal arguments. Or maybe not.

It seems that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals had to tell the DHS and the Board of Immigration Appeals that Wikipedia is no excuse for evidence to use in their proceedings. In this particular case, an Ethiopian woman had entered with false papers, seeking asylum. The DHS and Immigration dutifully looked up her real papers from back home on Wikipedia and decided (based on the wiki article about the documents she was using) that they weren't good enough proof of identity. [more]

You'd think that it should be common sense--Wikipedia is great for learning about stuff in general when you're bored, but given that there's no requirement of actual knowledge in order to edit entries there, it's pretty commonly agreed that it shouldn't be used for anything where documentation and proof are important.

But with the government and anything internet-related, it seems more often than not that sense is anything but common... ;)

120,384 views 62 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

I'm not sure if I'd accept a wikipedia article as identity proof either, but I kind of laugh when people look down on Wikipedia as a reference for facts and information.

The journal Nature did a study comparing the number of inaccuracies in Wikipedia compared to the Encyclopedia Britanica.  They found an average of 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.   Not bad when you think about it.

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

To clarify, they looked at an article about the documents she was using. Like looking at an article about US drivers licenses to see whether they count as official documents, instead of looking at the law or contacting the issuing government.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

To clarify, they looked at an article about the documents she was using. Like looking at an article about US drivers licenses to see whether they count as official documents, instead of looking at the law or contacting the issuing government.

I am sure it is not humous to her, but I do find it funny.

Reply #4 from WinCustomize Forums Top

But with the government and anything internet-related, it seems more often than not that sense is anything but common...

Just those two things? :grin:

Common sense is anything but common. Period.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Common sense is anything but common. Period.

It is an endangered species. ;)

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

The problem with people is that they find that Wikipedia is 100% accurate. Research paper, maybe, so I think some people are Ludites, but not court-level evidence.

Reply #7 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Wikipedia is a novel approach to a "cloud based" encyclopedia, but it isn't set up with a 'review board' or experts who comb through the contributions constantly, verifying and certifying them. As such it could never meet the standard demanded in the Rules of Evidence. The Judge ruled correctly.

After all. would anyone agree to a person whose credentials as a Neurosurgeon were not verified by a duly recognized  body 'popping your top'? I think not.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wikipedia is a novel approach to a "cloud based" encyclopedia, but it isn't set up with a 'review board' or experts who comb through the contributions constantly, verifying and certifying them. As such it could never meet the standard demanded in the Rules of Evidence. The Judge ruled correctly.
After all. would anyone agree to a person whose credentials as a Neurosurgeon were not verified by a duly recognized body 'popping your top'? I think not.

And yet the study I spoke of found 2.92 mistakes per article in the Britanica.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

And yet the study I spoke of found 2.92 mistakes per article in the Britanica.

Computers have made mistakes easier to find and identify.  And in some cases, also to disseminate false information.  I doubt anyone could have gotten that 2.92 figure from a printed version of Britanica.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Then she's a dumbass and needs to be sent back. If one is seeking asylum, no papers are needed. It's more likely she presented false papers...and when busted for doing so, attempted to change her status from 'immigrant' to 'refugee.'

Or it's all just an Urban Legend ;~D

Reply #11 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I don't care what country you hail from, when your very first act in America is breaking the law, (ie: presenting falsified documents of identity) you need to be sent back home, preferably after serving a few years in prison for even trying.

Not on my dime! Why should I support illegal aliens in jail? How does that make my life better? How does that deter (like anyone in Ethiopa would know or care? They'd take the risk!) ?

Naah...maybe forced extradition is the answer, maybe not. But there's gotta be a better way than this! In the country that put man on the moon, I refuse to believe we can't find a better way, and that includes every illegal alien. They are de facto security risks and should be dealt with by physical and documentation/credentialling barriers. They and their offspring should not be allowed to "profit" from the illegal act of undocumented immigration.

I know I'll probably catch hell for that, but that's the way I see it. 

 

:waaaa:

Reply #12 from WinCustomize Forums Top

They are de facto security risks and should be dealt with by physical and documentation/credentialling barriers.
Catch them, tattoo thier forehead, and send them packing, right?  8C

Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top

"But with the government and anything internet-related, it seems more often than not that sense is anything but common... ;) "

 

Oho! ZING!!

Reply #14 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Zubaz, reply 13
They are de facto security risks and should be dealt with by physical and documentation/credentialling barriers.Catch them, tattoo thier forehead, and send them packing, right? 

Nah....tag them with GPS locators, then ship their asses back and make sure they stay there. :-"

Reply #15 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I'll support that idea little-whip. But...make sure there's 10 feet of wall BELOW the ground too. If you're gonna do something, do it right. ;)

 

BTW, I live in Southern California. X(

Reply #16 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Zubaz, reply 13
They are de facto security risks and should be dealt with by physical and documentation/credentialling barriers.Catch them, tattoo thier forehead, and send them packing, right? 

No, Zu....By "physical and documentation/credentialling barriers" I mmean The fence, and documentation that is extremely "forgery proof" such as retinal photos and finger prints.

You can't be serious about branding. :(O

Reply #17 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Because we can use them as slave labor to help build the wall, silly!

Little-Whip, that's unconstitutional and illegal. Our security is our responsibility to create and maintain. I'm upset about a US President that "for some reason" (his corporate moneyed buddies) can't fulfill his oath as President to preserve and protect.... and the pretend to be Mr. Security and try to paint the Democrats as weak on the enemy. B.S.!!!!!

 

Reply #18 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Ok so ..wait.....what.....oh yeah... wikipedia... courts....thats right.  Sorry couldn't remember for a minute what the thread was about. ;P

 

And yeah that was pretty idiotic of them to try.

Reply #19 from WinCustomize Forums Top

So i take it, then, in my bid to prove aliens intend a hostile takeover of the World, my referencing wikipedia's reference to the Borg isn't gonna convince anyone?

Dammit, I'll have to turn to my Stargate SG1 magazines for evidence, then. ;P

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

my referencing wikipedia's reference to the Borg isn't gonna convince anyone?

I beleive it!  Damn Borg cant even respect pirates. ;)

Reply #21 from WinCustomize Forums Top

So why would it be illegal or unconstitutional to do the same to illegal immigrants?

It shouldn't be... and if they refuse to work, put 'em in a vaporising chamber and use the collected energy to reduce our need for fossil fuels.

O:)

Reply #22 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Many states compell prisoners to work on chain gangs, cleaning up roadways or doing other types of heavy labor, and there's nothing illegal about it.

Well, then I suppose you don't mind allying yourself to various historic regimes who engaged in "forced" or "Punitive Labor" .... the examples run from the Germans and Japanese (WWII) to the Soviets, Communist Chinese, and others.

I do, despite the 13th Amendment. How ironic to abolish and re-establish forced/bonded/punitive labor in one stroke!

I'd rather see Americans get jobs that could support their families with dignity, and prisoners get truely rehabilitated. That may be a pipe dream, but we should aim towards that, no?

I believe that it is impossible to force people to do competent work, and that the archaic thinking that produces a slave class (no matter what the "justification" is: Biblical or other) is immoral.

Simple expulsion for illegal aliens is enough provided they have paid taxes on what they have earned, and pay their ticket back. If they commit a crime, jail time in their OWN country. Each prisoner runs us about $50,000 a year. How's their labor going to pay that off? I don't see a fence builder or highway cleaner earning $50,000 a year.

Incidently, being 'Liberal' or 'Conservative' is not an insult. Last time I looked, we were still free to choose our belief and political regime.

I can say, though that I would fight to the death for your freedom to express your thoughts as I would hope you'd do fo me and mine.

Reply #23 from WinCustomize Forums Top

The key word here in illegal aliens is "ILLEGAL" that pretty much sums it up for me

Reply #24 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting jpmurph1, reply 2
The key word here in illegal aliens is "ILLEGAL" that pretty much sums it up for me

Exactly, so how do our constitutional rights apply to them, if they aren't even citizens? As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY thing they are "entitiled" to us a bus ride back over the border.

Reply #25 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Where  is the line between illegal immigrant and foreign invader crossed? Living next to Area 51 for many years,I can tell you that IR cameras,ground motion sensors and armed,well trained guards  and attack dogs WILL keep the wrong people on their side of the boarder"Use of deadly force is authorized" and Humvees with 50 cal machine guns do a great job of educating the public.

Wanna come to America? Do it the same way millions of others,including my great-grandparents did.Legally.They came looking for a better life,not demanding that one be given to them.