Talk:Childs v. Desormeaux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
I'm getting really sick and fucking tired of whatever cheese eating highschool boy is writing in case summaries. This one is not even close to the worst so far, but look can we just get some sort of 'agreement' from you wikipedia morons to at least attempt to use the case summaries available from quicklaw etc to guide your entries?
I'm seriously going to just start erasing case summaries. If some memo-mad 1st year with half a brain used some of the case summaries I've fixed in the last year from time to time they'd be drummed out of law school as clinically retarded.
- I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think many of the summaries were written with the intention of being correct or complete right off the bat. I suspect you may have the wrong expectations for what you are reading. As with virtually everything else on wikipedia, material it is all a work in progress. The errors and gaps are should motivate people to correct them. It is unfortunate that it has had the opposite effect with you. I completely agree that some of the articles are very poor, but I don't see the need to be paternalistic to the student who wants rely on materials that is noticably incomplete and unclear. On each page there is a link to the actual case so I don't think it unreasonable or onerous to expect a reader to verify what they read by checking the actual decision. If they want to rely on potentially incorrect information without doing any further due diligence then that is entirely up to them. While I understand you may be frustrated, I don't see any reason not to try to improve what is already there rather than reject the whole thing outright. Perhaps if you were to elaborate on what you see as wrong in each article, I'm certain we can work on getting it right. --PullUpYourSocks 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
