Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20/In the news


 * The use of Wikipedia wasn't to define the term "jet ski," it was to show that it is ambiguous for the purpose of correctly interpreting an exclusionary insurance policy clause. Analogously, it's wrong to use an opinion poll to determine the value of pi, but not to determine how accurately people know it. 71.212.250.193 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that with or without FA or GA status, thus best content of any article is what has been clearly verified using a (or multiple) reliable source that has been summarized by in a neutral manor this way any content written by any editor can be looked at while looking at its source. If a viewer of the content, especially a judge or law clerk, wishes not to use Wikipedia directly, they can always use the base reliable source. By doing so, someone who may not be a subject matter expert on a topic can see what those interested in the topic use to create relevant content about the subject, so they may gain a richer understanding of the topic themselves.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with RCLC: As a reference, Wikipedia falls short, but it is a great stepping stone to use for finding reliable and scholarly sources. On the other hoof, I certainly also think that using Wikipedia to determine what a common understanding of a vernacular phrase is can be an invaluable tool for legal research. ~  Pony  Toast ... §  04:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia as a court source.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)