User-Generated Content Shapes Judicial Reasoning: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial on Wikipedia

Abstract

User-generated content, for example, on Wikipedia, is easily accessed but has uncertain reliability. This makes it attractive to use but also creates risk, so there should be limits to who uses Wikipedia and for what purposes. In this paper, we use a randomized control trial to show that Wikipedia’s influence extends to judicial decision making, a field that is highly professional and supposed to follow strict procedures. This causal evidence further emphasizes the widespread influence of Wikipedia and other frequently accessed user-generated content on important social outcomes. Our findings also reveal boundaries to user-generated content’s influence. Although Wikipedia’s influence does extend to courts of “first instance” (where the case is first decided), it does not extend to higher courts (Court of Appeals, Supreme Court). These results suggest that normative prohibitions do seem to be sufficient to keep Wikipedia from influencing the most-important, well-resourced parts of law but that these prohibitions are insufficient in areas where time and resource pressures are greater. By showing that Wikipedia is influencing such an important and formal domain, our paper reinforces the importance of improving the accuracy and reliability of user-generated content, especially in domains with far-reaching societal consequences. Because there is no obvious way to prevent individuals from taking advantage of user-generated content professionally or nonprofessionally, our findings also contribute to the ongoing discussion of how to build public repositories of knowledge into more reliable storehouses.Legal professionals have access to many different sources of knowledge, including user-generated Wikipedia articles that summarize previous judicial decisions (i.e., precedents). Although these Wikipedia articles are easily accessible, they have unknown provenance and reliability, and therefore using them in professional settings is problematic. Nevertheless, Wikipedia articles influence legal judgments, as we show using a first-of-its-kind randomized control trial on judicial decision making. We find that the presence of a Wikipedia article about Irish Supreme Court decisions makes it meaningfully more likely that the corresponding case will be cited as a precedent by judges in subsequent decisions. The language used in the Wikipedia article also influences the language used in judgments. These effects are only present for citations by the High Court and not for the higher levels of the judiciary (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court). The High Court faces larger caseloads, so this may indicate that settings with greater time pressures encourage greater reliance on Wikipedia. Our results add to the growing recognition that Wikipedia and other frequently accessed sources of user-generated content have profound effects on important social outcomes and that these effects extend farther than previously seen—into high-stakes settings where norms are supposed to restrict their use.History: Rajiv Kohli, Senior Editor; Gordon Burtch, Associate Editor.Funding: The authors thank Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Maynooth University for research funding.Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2023.0034 .