Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-08-05/In the media

Court cases built on Wikipedia articles
Thanks to the journalists for producing this piece. This piece shows the substantial epistemologic hypocrisy and simpleton-ism that often surround applications of Wikipedia content even among some people who hold professional degrees (and thus are supposed to know better). What some of these lawyers and commentators are actually showing, beneath their emperor's-new-suit-style front of fabricated moral outrage, is that "to 'win the game', one is supposed to use Wikipedia to get clues and circumspection but then also deny that one did so, and leave no publicly/easily available evidence or paper trail showing that one did so. But I'll tell you, or imply, not to look at Wikipedia at all because it's unmitigated garbage. Thus, do as I say, not as I do." The plain fact about how to apply Wikipedia properly is that you use it to gain orientation on a topic but then you also go read reliable sources, including usually the very same reliable references cited by Wikipedia itself, before you base any critical decision on the Wikipedia content. This mode of use is not as different from that of a library reference desk as the fake moral outrage would imply. When one criticizes the defense lawyer who read about Texas capital punishment on Wikipedia, for example, the correct lesson is not that "she should have avoided even looking at Wikipedia"—the correct lesson is simply that "she should have also read multiple reliable sources after reading Wikipedia, and not allowed anyone to find any printouts of Wikipedia in her briefcase." People's hypocrisy about Wikipedia is tiring, especially because that same snarky asshole who acts like he knows better about the epistemologic approach to using (or avoiding) Wikipedia will casually read the Google answer box, which often cites no references at all and makes no attempt to show how or where it got its information, all day long. And, once again, what really matters to him is just to pretend that he didn't—to appear not to have done so, or leave no clear evidence of having done so. But of course, the simpleton-ism comes from all sides, because the lawyers and judges who cite Wikipedia in briefs and decisions (the ones that the snarky hypocrites attack) should have had enough sense to cite the reliable sources that they found via Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia article itself, just as they would cite the reliable sources that they found via the reference librarian, not the reference librarian herself/himself. For example, with the helicopter dual-use technology import/export issue, many or most Wikipedia articles on aircraft cite Jane's reference works—including the article on the Mil Mi-28. Among the laziness, ignorance, childishness, and hypocrisy in how people treat the epistemology of online content, I'm not sure which of the four is most inexcusable. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of sources...
Speaking of correct use of sources, the article on NTN EST and the Russian Mil Mi-28 helicopter is clearly referring to Estonia's Tax and Customs Board. It would be quite strange indeed for "Europe", with Russia being the largest country of Europe, to have a single tax authority. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)