I concur that this is a reasonable approach and an elegant solution to the problem which is more or less the reason for the existence of this blog – the publication of legal wisdom in the 21st century. Wikipedia, for example, has become an effective primary source for encyclopedic information; it is frequently updated, for the most part well-sourced, and by the efforts of a wide range of volunteer editorial staff, remarkable neutral in its point of view. It does suffer from near constant vandalism, and there is an ongoing battle between vandals deleting articles (or possibly worse, modifying the content with inaccurate information) on the one hand and the editorial volunteers reverting vandalism on the other.

Which brings me to my point (in, I admit, a rather roundabout fashion): who would maintain editorial control of any potential legalwiki? Would it be accessible for anyone to edit? Or anyone at the law faculty supporting it? How do you confirm the data provided is accurate?

A particular example struck me as I was thinking about this – say the wiki documents a precedent-setting case which has widespread legal ramifications. What if the wiki article for that case is edited by someone with a vested interest in misinterpreting or misrepresenting the outcome of that case – and does so in a manner which goes unnoticed for more than a few minutes? Not beyond the realm of possibility, given that this resource may be accessed by lawyers, paralegals, or the general public with a need for do-it-yourself law.

The modern publishing environment allows you to set a “precedent” which is the diametric opposite of the actual precedent set by the case – and do so in a manner which goes unnoticed by everyone but those directly involved in the original legal action.

I’m not arguing against any of the possibilities here…but I think it’s necessary to keep in mind that, while there are truly mind-blowing opportunities for the publication of knowledge in the modern digital environment, the opportunities to abuse those possibilities are equally staggering.

It is worth more than two cents!

I think I might give it a try and see what happens!

Colm

But I would think an annotated statute would be ideal for placing in an online format, for two reasons: (a) every annotation can be linked to the particular case’s CANLII page, so that the reader can instantly access the decision in question; and (b) updates can be provided quickly and effortlessly within days of a new case’s release, a new regulation’s publication, or the Act’s amendment. Neither of these utilities can be provided in a bound and printed book, and even a CD-ROM can’t be updated as fast as a blog, wiki or website can.

There’s also the question of your own goals. Traditional legal publishing has rarely produced much in the way of direct financial gains to authors (and online publishing promises even less). But if what you’re looking for is publicity and recognition, then I really think an online publication can provide that as well — again, depending on what your readership values. Keep in mind that being a online author has rewards beyond a cyber-audience — high-profile bloggers who carve out a space for themselves online are being more and more frequently contacted by the media (legal and mainstream) for authoritative comment on a particular subject area.

So I think you could go either way, depending on your audience, but I think your proposed project would be a great fit for an online operation. Just my two cents.

Very thought provoking and I think you are absolutely correct but at the moment is there a “curve” or many “curves” in the game?

I suspect many, and the crucial decision is to decide which one to take?

As an example, I am considering writing an annotated guide to the Arbitration Act for a major legal publisher. There is none in print at the moment. My “old” assumption is that their marketing expertise and the “prestige” of their imprint will produce the best results (ie publicity and recognition) for me. But maybe I should dump this assumption and instead produce and host an online version?

Or maybe not?

Colm