As
I was skimming for cases discussing libel and the TCPA (Texas Citizens
Participation Act), I stumbled into D Magazine Partners v. Rosenthal, No.15-0790, 2017 WL 1041234 (Tx. Sup. Ct. March 17, 2017). Some readers may have heard
of this case because it concerns D Magazine and their publication of a local interest
story. The gist of this story, and the subsequent libel case, revolves around an
article published by D Magazine identifying the plaintiff as the “The Park
Cities Welfare Queen.” The article contains an investigation of the plaintiff
and provides evidence that she may be abusing public benefits while living in a
wealthy part of Dallas etc.
Where
does Wikipedia tie in? Well, apparently the Court of Appeals relied heavily on
Wikipedia for the definition of “welfare queen.” As the Tex. Sup. Court states:
“Essentially, the [Court of Appeals] used the Wikipedia definition as the
lynchpin of its analysis on a critical issue.” Id. at 6. The Court took
issue with this heavy reliance and spent significant space discussing their
concerns with relying on Wikipedia for a critical issue. This sums up their
concern:
“Of
the many concerns expressed about Wikipedia use, lack of reliability is paramount
and may often preclude its use as a source of authority in opinions. At the
least, we find it unlikely Wikipedia could suffice as the sole source of
authority on an issue of any significance to a case.”
Id. at 5. It did not
end there. Justice Guzman drafted a separate concurrence “to emphasize the
perils of relying on Wikipedia.” Id.
at 10 (Guzman, J., concurring). There are a lot of nuggets worth including
here, so I will pull out a few and present them next.
Both
the majority and Justice Guzman acknowledge the usefulness of Wikipedia
throughout, but they caution against reliance: “Wikipedia has many strengths
and benefits, but reliance on unverified, crowd-generated information to
support judicial rulings is unwise.” Id.
at 10 (Guzman, J., concurring).
Justice
Guzman even quotes Wikipedia’s warning against citing as a “damning indictment”:
“As Wikipedia states more pointedly, “Wikipedia is a wiki, which means that
anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or
adding false information, which the reader may not recognize. Thus, you probably shouldn't be citing
Wikipedia.” Id. at 11 (Guzman,
J., concurring) (emphasis not added).
Justice
Guzman concludes with this, which looks like it could have been written by a
librarian: “…in my view, Wikipedia properly serves the judiciary only as a
compendium—a source for sources—and not as authority for any disputed,
dispositive, or legally consequential matter.” Id. at 13 (Guzman, J., concurring).
It
is nice to have the weight of the Texas Supreme Court on your side when you
caution against Wiki reliance to your library’s patrons.
No comments:
Post a Comment