Internet Newsletter for Lawyers |
|---|
In an earlier article
What is a Wiki Part 1 from January/February 2004
(this article is essentially part 2!),
I explained that our firm had been looking for a way to bring together our in-house “know how”,
particularly as it relates to our specialist area, the liability of local authorities. The solution was
to customise an open source Wiki programme (originally OpenWiki, see now OpenwikiNG.com.
The NG stands for Next Generation).
Over four years our Wiki has grown to a 250 page, encyclopaedic resource which has greatly
improved our practice. It includes such things as;
(a) Relevant cases, mostly unreported with a summary, the correct citation and a hyperlink to
a high quality scanned copy of the case;
(b) Themed “pages” summarising principles of law such as limitation of actions, contribution and
so on with particular relevance to our practice areas;
(c) Links to scanned copies of technical documents;
(d) Examples of pleadings and affirmative defences;
(e) Procedural points;
(f) Summaries of in-house procedures such as how we resolve claims and interact with our
clients.
Richard Susskind was impressed with the success of Wikipedia, and suggested that a Wiki
focussed on English law could and should be attempted. His enthusiasm overlooked the fact
that a Wiki is no more than a piece of software. It is initially blank, and relies upon the input of
one or many contributors for its content. The original Wiki was written by Ward Cunningham
to enable programmers working collaboratively on large software projects to document the
projects. A Wiki works well where you have a group of dedicated people collaborating on a
project. Such contributors will be knowledgeable, will respect each other’s views and will be
motivated to contribute.
There is no guarantee of such comity when you open a Wiki to public access. The contributors
may not be knowledgeable and may even be malevolent. The operators of a public Wiki need
to consider whether everyone should be allowed to make entries, the extent to which
contributors should be entitled to change or delete the contributions of others, and how to
protect the Wiki against vandalism.
Wikipedia succeeds because of the enthusiasm of a core of contributors and, more recently,
because of limitations placed upon the ability of members of the public to add content or
remove or amend it. (See the Slashdot.org news item and discussion from February 14th, 2007,
‘Is Wikipedia Failing’ at
slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/14/1314235
for a heated debate on this).
As identified by Steve Butler, members of the public will rely upon the
accuracy of a legal Wiki and such accuracy can only be ensured where the contributors are
knowledgeable and the content is up to date. He is probably right in saying that the task is too
big for a voluntary exercise. A Wiki where the core content is written by professionals would
have a better prospect of success. What can be done to encourage professionals to donate
their time? As with Wikipedia, a core of dedicated people is needed, committed to the ideal of
a freely available digest of the law. If it becomes necessary to pay for contributions, who will
pay?
An in-house Wiki has its own problems. It can be difficult to encourage solicitors to devote
valuable chargeable time to making a contribution. Budgetary allowances may be necessary
to encourage such selfless behaviour. There is also a natural reluctance to present ones own
opinions to peers. Care is needed to prevent content being added that duplicates other
resources within the firm, e.g. there are already extensive electronic databases covering civil
procedure and the rules of evidence. It is also important to warn authors not to rely upon
propositions or information on a Wiki without thinking it through themselves.
In terms of the software, OpenWiki has been very reliable. Solicitors have found it easy to use.
However some computer knowledge is necessary to set up and customise the software. For
an ‘off the shelf’ product, Microsoft has added Wiki features to the latest version of Sharepoint.
Paul Robertson is a litigator at Heaney & Co, a niche insurance law practice in Auckland, New
Zealand. Paul enjoys using IT to make the practice of law more rewarding. He is a contributor
to OpenWikiNG.
Back to Contents.
Wiki at Work
In the last issue of this newsletter, Steve Butler explained his disillusionment with Wikis -
Why Wikis Won’t Work (for The Law).
I agree that a website that can be edited by members of the
public may not be the best way of compiling “… a multi media encyclopaedia of English law”.
However, a Wiki remains an excellent tool for collating and presenting a law firm’s collective
wisdom.
by Paul Robertson
Prospects for public law wikis
Back in the Office
Email par@heaneyco.com