Comments on: Open Everything http://donklephant.com/2007/02/24/open-everything/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:12:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: bob in fl http://donklephant.com/2007/02/24/open-everything/#comment-241630 bob in fl Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:52:13 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/02/24/open-everything/#comment-241630 You are right. You only posted the article without comment. My apologie for my caustic statement about you. I found it a very interesting article, but it seems readers don't find it so. There have been no comments on the original article & only one here all day. Where did everyone else go? You are right. You only posted the article without comment. My apologie for my caustic statement about you.

I found it a very interesting article, but it seems readers don’t find it so. There have been no comments on the original article & only one here all day. Where did everyone else go?

]]> By: Marc Schulman http://donklephant.com/2007/02/24/open-everything/#comment-241004 Marc Schulman Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:54:05 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/02/24/open-everything/#comment-241004 Excuse for what? For saying it was an interesting article? Excuse for what? For saying it was an interesting article?

]]> By: bob in fl http://donklephant.com/2007/02/24/open-everything/#comment-240972 bob in fl Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:21:27 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/02/24/open-everything/#comment-240972 "In the past year, Wikipedia . . . has been cited in judicial opinions 4 times as often as the Encyclopedia Britannica in judicial opinions..." What the **** are judges thinking in referring to ANY encyclopedias in judicial opinions? These decisions are supposed to be made from legitimately published law journals & reference books. And how can they justify citing Wikipedia when anyone can post false info or edit real info, making it the least reliable of all references? I hope this is a prejudiced opinion, which demands a retraction in every blog, website, or traditional publication where it has been published. Oh, I forgot. The author got the information from Wikipedia. So Marc, what is your excuse? If I ever have to face a judge, I guess my best defense is to edit the appropriate entry in Wikipadia & pray the judge doesn't rely on legitimate sources. “In the past year, Wikipedia . . . has been cited in judicial opinions 4 times as often as the Encyclopedia Britannica in judicial opinions…”

What the **** are judges thinking in referring to ANY encyclopedias in judicial opinions? These decisions are supposed to be made from legitimately published law journals & reference books. And how can they justify citing Wikipedia when anyone can post false info or edit real info, making it the least reliable of all references?

I hope this is a prejudiced opinion, which demands a retraction in every blog, website, or traditional publication where it has been published. Oh, I forgot. The author got the information from Wikipedia. So Marc, what is your excuse?

If I ever have to face a judge, I guess my best defense is to edit the appropriate entry in Wikipadia & pray the judge doesn’t rely on legitimate sources.

]]>