Talk:Submissions/Wikimedia - The New Secondary Source of Law

From Wikimania 2014 • London, United Kingdom

There is no abstract to judge this presentation. So, I say no. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there was a well written abstract, as a US attorney, I would never cite Wikipedia as a secondary reference. I would use Wikipedia as a data merger and find secondary sources on a topic. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As of 16 April 2014, there is now a well written abstract, with some Indian-style grammar, that puts forth a thesis. I like the idea of a citation creator. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the time to wade through the language, this is actually a pretty interesting idea; using wikipedia as an expert witness. Certainly good value for money, accessible and quick; certainly preferable to nothing --EdSaperia (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Submissions/Wikimedia_-_The_New_Secondary_Source_of_Law&oldid=26033"