Wikipedia and Prior Art
TechnoLawyer's IP Memes had an interesting post on the use of Wikipedia references in prior art searches for some patent applications (A search of the PTO database for the term wikipedia currently has 17 hits).
Geek that I am, I've used wikis on occasion as collaboration tools for geographically dispersed workgroups. Twiki is usually the wiki package I think of first, perhaps because my significant other insists on using it for EVERYTHING - or more likely because the name conjures up fond memories of watching Buck Rogers as a kid.
I wouldn't consider Wikipedia authoritative for most information requiring citation, but I have been known to reference it for general, non-critical information, like a history of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. The problem, as pointed out in TechnoLawyer, is that anyone can post anything in Wikipedia. It's left up to volunteer editors to maintain the integrity of the information submitted. You can find out who's been editing a certain article by checking the history tab. You'll notice some entries only list an IP address and no username. That's where it gets a bit, well, scary - you may have an idea of the geographic location of that user (if you have access to some IP reference databases and assume a proxy isn't hiding their real location), but you really don't know who they are or why they made the changes they did. Editor comments can sometimes be (un)intentionally misleading, as I've often seen in internal version controlled projects, too.
Does that mean I never use Wikipedia? Of course not. Overall, the info in there seems fairly reliable for the topics I've researched, but trustworthiness is always an issue when you're dealing with electronic data. How many people are willing to challenge the reliability of the WestLaw or LexisNexis databases? Does a black box editorial process inspire more or less confidence?
For me, the more significant the issue is, the more authoritative the reference needs to be. A freely accessible encyclopedia composed by (sometimes) anonymous volunteer authors just doesn't always fit the bill. On the occasions where it does suffice, I always archive a copy of the current version of the page for future reference. I'd hate to have one of my sources disappear without notice.
[UPDATE] The Tech Law Prof blog has a couple related entries this week on Wikipedia vandalism and the Wiki-Law project [/UPDATE]
Geek that I am, I've used wikis on occasion as collaboration tools for geographically dispersed workgroups. Twiki is usually the wiki package I think of first, perhaps because my significant other insists on using it for EVERYTHING - or more likely because the name conjures up fond memories of watching Buck Rogers as a kid.
I wouldn't consider Wikipedia authoritative for most information requiring citation, but I have been known to reference it for general, non-critical information, like a history of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. The problem, as pointed out in TechnoLawyer, is that anyone can post anything in Wikipedia. It's left up to volunteer editors to maintain the integrity of the information submitted. You can find out who's been editing a certain article by checking the history tab. You'll notice some entries only list an IP address and no username. That's where it gets a bit, well, scary - you may have an idea of the geographic location of that user (if you have access to some IP reference databases and assume a proxy isn't hiding their real location), but you really don't know who they are or why they made the changes they did. Editor comments can sometimes be (un)intentionally misleading, as I've often seen in internal version controlled projects, too.
Does that mean I never use Wikipedia? Of course not. Overall, the info in there seems fairly reliable for the topics I've researched, but trustworthiness is always an issue when you're dealing with electronic data. How many people are willing to challenge the reliability of the WestLaw or LexisNexis databases? Does a black box editorial process inspire more or less confidence?
For me, the more significant the issue is, the more authoritative the reference needs to be. A freely accessible encyclopedia composed by (sometimes) anonymous volunteer authors just doesn't always fit the bill. On the occasions where it does suffice, I always archive a copy of the current version of the page for future reference. I'd hate to have one of my sources disappear without notice.
[UPDATE] The Tech Law Prof blog has a couple related entries this week on Wikipedia vandalism and the Wiki-Law project [/UPDATE]
posted by Nivine K. Zakhari at
17:17
(data provided from NewsGator Online)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home