12.6 C
London
Saturday, October 1, 2022

Judges can be manipulated by Wikipedia articles, warns MIT study

Must read

This is how much your EMI will rise after the recent rise in the repo rate

Over the past two years, interest rates on loans have risen by 1.9% – causing the EMI math of most borrowers. Most experts...

Hurricane Ian death toll rises

At least 23 people in Florida have been killed by Hurricane Ian, state officials said Friday.The actual death toll from the powerful Category 4...

Tesla’s robot strategy is inextricably linked to its Autopilot strategy, for better or for worse • londonbusinessblog.com

Tesla unveiled its first prototype of its Optimus humanoid robot on Friday — a real robot this time, by the strictest definition, rather than...

Enjoy these exclusive benefits in the TC+ Lounge at Disrupt • londonbusinessblog.com

Everyone knows that membership has its privileges. And that adage holds true at londonbusinessblog.com Disrupt, which takes place October 18-20 in San Francisco....
Shreya Christinahttps://londonbusinessblog.com
Shreya has been with londonbusinessblog.com for 3 years, writing copy for client websites, blog posts, EDMs and other mediums to engage readers and encourage action. By collaborating with clients, our SEO manager and the wider londonbusinessblog.com team, Shreya seeks to understand an audience before creating memorable, persuasive copy.

Litigants could abuse Wikipedia to influence legal decisions, according to new research.

An investigation led by Neil Thompson of MIT’s Computer Science and AI Laboratory (CSAIL) found that judges previously cited legal cases that included a Wikipedia article.

The finding has raised concerns that court decisions are shaped by unreliable information. Wikipedia’s openness can also lead to legal statements being manipulated.

Greetings, Humanoids

Sign up for our newsletter now for a weekly roundup of our favorite AI stories delivered to your inbox.

“A well-equipped litigant might encourage his legal team to anonymously integrate their own analysis of a relevant precedent into a Wikipedia article early on in a trial, hoping to catch the attention of the judge or his clerk later on, Thompson said. TNW.

The case against Wikipedia

Wikipedia is quoted more and more in legal science and court decisions.

Busy judges use the site to keep up with developments in case law, but the shortcut is dangerous.

Wikipedia recognizes that not everything on the site is accurate, complete, or unbiased.