Law Students

Wikipedia As Study Tool

By Casebook Sherpa

I like to link to wikipedia articles. I like the value added by a site that aggregates knowledge while setting up controls - computer and human - to screen contributions for self-promotion and inaccuracy. Of course, the law-related entries on there are not SCOTUS truth nor are they to be quoted for exams. But they often give a good thumbnail of an issue or discreet topic - particularly, if you’re a blogger looking to point someone to a thumbnail of collateral estoppel. One way though I think a1L can use wikipedia to his or her advantage is to contribute to it.

Ok, so it’s not like writing onto the Law Review. But the process of figuring out how to accurately convey information that we’ve learned in an objective, fact-based manner with citations can serve as extra practice, particularly as you outline and begin to grasp the intricacies of what you’re studying.

The site contains entries on just about any legal issue you cover in a 1L class. Many are quite exhaustive. Some, not so much. Either way, there are nuances and cases and examples we consider in case books and news reading and blogging that can add to these entries.

I’ve tried this several times and found - as I’ve learned in my professional life, as well - that Wikipedia’s posting policy is strict and well-enforced; it requires citations and objectivity and accuracy. There is plenty that slips through the cracks. But, by and large, the site does a good job at policing content. I know, because I’ve had entries taken down. Here’s one, though, that has stayed up. It’s on the parol evidence rule entry:

A perfect example of the rule playing out in an employment setting where the contract includes an integration clause is in the legal dispute between West Virginia University and its former football coach, Rich Rodriguez. Rodriguez accepted a job at the University of Michigan four months after signing an extension at West Virginia. The University sued Rodriguez to recover $4 million under the buyout provision of the coach’s contract. In his answer to the University’s complaint, Rodriguez alleges that an oral promise was made to him in advance of signing the extension that the buyout clause would not be enforced (or, if it were to be enforced, would be split between the sides). Absent fraudulent inducement by the University, it does not appear Rodriguez would prevail because of the parol evidence rule.

I cited a news article as my source: “Rodriguez defends his departure from WVU,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1/25/08.

Sadly, the link I included to an excellent blog written by the West Virginia University School of Law Sports and Entertainment Law Society was taken down. (check that blog out. it’s a bunch of law students learning as they write. they’ve posted all the court documents and link to news articles and other developments in the case)

Full post as published by Fight The Hypo on February 28, 2008 (boomark / email).