Jurispedia talk:On the contents of the articles
From Jurispedia
- What is valid content for articles?
- At present there are no guidelines about what to write about and the headings in various pages give few clues as to how much is wanted.
At present we have a large wiki that covers the whole world concerning a subject that almost everyone would know a little bit about, the law, yet there are very few contributions. Why is this? Is the law really that complex that nobody knows anything worthwhile to say?
I feel one reason that this wiki is not getting many contributions is that people do not see something small enough that they can contribute to, comfortably.
Also, there are imposing statements requesting input from academics. Unfortunately, academics do not write or make the law (I hope), they research what others do to make the law. However, this means the common person is uncertain about contributing, so doesn't.
Consequently, some guidance and help is needed for the common person to contribute -- Cameron 03:41, 2 July 2006 (CEST)
- Note
- If this project is to take off I would suggest that some thought be given to how to encourage and guide the potential contributor base. There is none being provided here at present and the wiki is almost lifeless as a result. -- Cameron 03:41, 2 July 2006 (CEST)
I agree and a few thoughts follow:
1. I would suggest that for an English-language (and hence more likely than not common law lawyer-based) law database, the best system, at least at the beginning, would be to provide a quick summary of cases in a given area of the law, and further subdivide it by jurisdiction, as necessary. This would mean providing one paragraph "points of law" such as:
In case X v. Y, the [Court Name] held in [year], in a case in which ..., that ...
It would be very useful (almost necessary) to link each case to the original version of the case. This would save time for researchers generally and naurally provide a good, free, useful, reliable, internet-based legal resource.
2. My suggestion would be to start with an area of law in which there are international legal instruments which would help generate interest from a large body of contributors, from both international and national jurisdictions.
3. As the work progressed, it might be possible to then add introductory paragraphs which tried to sumarise the case law on the given point, but not before.
4. I would suggest starting with human rights jurisprudence, which includes over 10,000 substantive cases from the European Court of Human Rights, over 1,000 cases from the UN Human Rights Committee, and thousands more from other regional bodies. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of cases from domestic courts which apply similar or identical rules.
5. In the human rights field, a classification based on the individual rights section of the Venice Commission's Bulletin of Constitutional Case Law (CODICES) might be useful.
6. A contributor would first read a case, then identify points of law, then contribute these points of law in one-paragraph summaries which would be placed in the appropriate place in the wiki. The contributor would also link to the original text of the case.
7. Lists of remaining cases to "take points of law from" would be placed on a separate page and removed as necessary.
8. Law lecturers / professors could be encouraged to have their students contribute by including "points of law" paragraphs.
Any takers, thoughts, suggestions on an appropriate place to start this? --Harland 18:15, 4 September 2006 (CEST)
- It's a good idea! Thank you!
- Unfortunetly I cannot help you for the Human Rights but this approach looks good.
- I'll contact peoples right now. en.jp is a small project, then you're free to apply your suggestions.
- For the moment en.jp is still hosted in France, I'm sure it need another place to grow too...
- Regards,
- Hughes-Jehan → (☏) 18:58, 4 September 2006 (CEST)
