Talk:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Transcript PDF problems
The Day 12 PM Day 16 AM transcript which I linked to is damaged: parts of it are unreadable. I linked to it anyways with a note mentioning the problem. This is almost certainly what the ACLU has reported for some of the transcripts which have yet to appear anywhere yet: the ACLU reported that they were damaged. The court reporter was the same as some of the previous transcripts which where overly large (over 3 megs) and would not allow copy and paste. MichaelSH 00:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- TMLC have a clean copy of this file - I've changed the link to point to it. Tevildo 15:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- My bad. Day 16 AM is what I should have wrote. I don't know how I got Day 12 PM other than it is one of the problem transcripts that one cannot copy and paste from. The TMLC copy does have the same problem. MichaelSH 00:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, you were right. :) The original ACLUPA copy of 12 PM was as bad as 16 AM is now. The TMLC copy isn't perfect, but at least it's readable throughout. Incidentally, The Panda's Thumb have worked out that it's due to one court reporter who is using an out-of-date (1995) and buggy PostScript driver on his computer. Tevildo 07:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yep. You are right. The TMLC copy fixes the unreadable bits. So at least I know now that I was not going crazy. I see that the NCSE copy is still unreadable. Now if we could only get a copy of the PDFs that are searchable and which one can do copy and paste from. And I noticed very early on that all PDFs which one could not simply rip the text from are Wes Armstrong's transcripts. Personally I think that the courts should standardize the files used produced by court reporters to make it easier for the information to be used and transformed into other formats.MichaelSH 20:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- The NCSE now has a good copy of 16 AM - link updated. Tevildo 01:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Motions
Are going to bother with linking to the various motions filed in the case? FeloniousMonk 16:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- If you are willing. Or one can link to sites with them. Be adviced that there are a great many documents related to this case that are not online. MichaelSH 00:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rationalize sources?
As the list nears completion, should we source all the documents from one place rather than the current multiple sites? If so, which is the most reliable - the NCSE? Tevildo 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] All transcripts now up
All the transcripts are now available. Tevildo 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Decision
The Decision link is bad (has been moved) Dan Watts 16:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed. FeloniousMonk 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The external link points to a page that has a bad link to the PDF. Dan Watts 18:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
