Apparently, Wikipedia - the online encyclopedia which allows open editing by anyone, has been recently in the spotlight by the U.S. Patent & Trademark office as a knowledge source equivalent to "toilet paper" in legal discourse.
Proponents of this argument state that Wikipedia had been used (within a database of other information sources) to validate patents (which confer exclusive rights to a product for their creators for up to twenty years). However, the ability for these "patent validity examiners" to use Wikipedia in searches has been revoked, on grounds that since the information is constantly changing - the information is not fit for determining a patent's validity.
Since discovering Wikipedia - I have developed a certain regard for its ability to evolve and update with new information, and especially its ability to be driven by a conglomerate of pre-critiqued ideas, while the final product is continually open to revision. Although I certainly don't think it wise to use Wikipedia as a fundamental basis for a patent proposal, or any other legal document (that's why we have primary law sources), I have no reservations as to its general guidance for basic contextual direction for a subject. It seems however, that this "ousting" to Wikipedia and subsequent "blow" to its credibility draws to mind whether something such as this could ever be considered a "valid" source of knowledge. But knowledge shouldn't be something static, and it is ineviteably open to change. So why the fuss about Wikipedia, the one purporting ultimate "up-to-dateness" as not serving the test of validity? Sounds like the debate should be more around "accuracy" and "reputation" rather than it's discredit for "changing with new information," which in itself is a highly respectable quality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment