21–30 of 129 posts
This is why in itself Wikipedia cannot be a trusted source but should be treated as purely, an extension of the media. They choose who they can cite and who they cannot.
Wikipedia has a very clear pro-science and pro-reality bias, and that's a good thing. You would not want news like OAN to be cited on their.
After watching a female judge sentence a child with autism for killing his rapist and childhood abuser, after he was acquited by a male judge years before, I kind of lost faith in all types of judicial process. AI needs to take over for such things.
An AI would be trained on human decisions, and unless we're careful it can easily have the same biases as human decision making.
This is alarming but I'm not sure the study actually finds that "Wikipedia influences judicial behavior" in the way most readers would understand that term - influencing decisions and sentence. It finds that "Getting a public Wikipedia article increased a case’s citations by more than 20 percent." That could mean judges are citing cases with wikipedia entries rather than similar cases without and their judicial behav…
Why would it be alarming. Wikipedia is a fine entry into any topic. Seeing PragerU influencing the court would be alarming.
After watching a female judge sentence a child with autism for killing his rapist and childhood abuser, after he was acquited by a male judge years before, I kind of lost faith in all types of judicial process. AI needs to take over for such things.
This goes against double jeopardy. Do you have a reference?
How did clerks/lawyers find those articles on Wikipedia? Through Google I reckon. I wonder how bad/good the search is for court judgements of their existing system. Sounds like they need to put those court judgements online, or if they already are, do some SEO work so they rank. Wikipedia was a great way to do that.
This is alarming but I'm not sure the study actually finds that "Wikipedia influences judicial behavior" in the way most readers would understand that term - influencing decisions and sentence. It finds that "Getting a public Wikipedia article increased a case’s citations by more than 20 percent." That could mean judges are citing cases with wikipedia entries rather than similar cases without and their judicial behav…
Why would it be alarming. Wikipedia is a fine entry into any topic. Seeing PragerU influencing the court would be alarming.
It isn't, that's the point of the study - not all court decisions are on wikipedia and those that are, are getting cited more. Judges, Lawyers, Clerks have access to the original decisions and court transcripts in electronic form going back decades and longer. If they're relying on whats on wikipedia - they're either doing poor research or are too lazy to write their own summations.
How did clerks/lawyers find those articles on Wikipedia? Through Google I reckon. I wonder how bad/good the search is for court judgements of their existing system. Sounds like they need to put those court judgements online, or if they already are, do some SEO work so they rank. Wikipedia was a great way to do that.
I think the benefit of Wikipedia is not access to materials so much as it is the succinct summarization of the legal opinions. Perhaps now NLP could help with this, but it's a very complicated problem to provide a summary of the important bits from a 100+ page legal document.