Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Cyberlaw (Brian Carver)/Articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Potential Articles To Work On[edit]

This table will list each article that a student is working on, and which other students will be peer reviewers for the article.

Personal Jurisdiction for Online Activities and International Jurisdiction[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
Kaffyne (talk · contribs) Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A ag20120101 (talk · contribs) klueska (talk · contribs)
open Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC open open
open Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set open open
open Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc. open open
open Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger open open
open Mink v. AAAA Development L.L.C. open open
open Boschetto v. Hansing open open
open Pres-Kap, Inc. v. System One, Direct Access, Inc. open open
DrewFisher (talk · contribs) CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson MktFuruya (talk · contribs) Kgorman-ucb (talk · contribs)
open Shrader v. Biddinger open open
open Be2, L.L.C. v. Ivanov open open
open J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro open open
shibaidi (talk · contribs) Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha Olga.bk (talk · contribs) Kaffyne (talk · contribs)
Fmyd (talk · contribs) Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc. noahj_ucb (talk · contribs) Gabriel.guardado (talk · contribs)
open CollegeSource, Inc. v AcademyOne, Inc. open open

Indecent Speech on the Internet[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
ag20120101 (talk · contribs) Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990 Mknaito (talk · contribs) open
open Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder open
Boalt Bear (talk · contribs) Facial challenge Yaj57 (talk · contribs) Mknaito (talk · contribs)
Mknaito (talk · contribs) United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group Boalt Bear (talk · contribs) Boaltie (talk · contribs)
Kgorman-ucb (talk · contribs) Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 Iristotle (talk · contribs) radolfo (talk · contribs)

Other Issues of Online Free Speech[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
open The King's English v. Shurtleff open open
open Internet Tax Freedom Act open open
open Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association v. Wingate open open
open Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association v. Attorney General of the United States open open
xxiao_ucb (talk · contribs) Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox Kgorman-ucb (talk · contribs) inwyrd (talk · contribs)

Immunity for Internet Intermediaries[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
open TBD open open

Liability for Posting Information Obtained by Others[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
noahj_ucb (talk · contribs) SEC v. Rajaratnam shaonbarman (talk · contribs) Tristan Lall (talk · contribs)

Copyright Liability for Internet Intermediaries[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
gabriel.guardado (talk · contribs) In re Aimster Copyright Litigation Fmyd (talk · contribs) shibaidi (talk · contribs)
open PROTECT IP Act open open
open Stop Online Piracy Act open open
open Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act open open
open National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center#Operation In Our Sites open open
open Operation In Our Sites v. 2.0 open open

Digital Rights Management and Anti-circumvention[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
open TBD open open

Network Neutrality[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
open TBD open open

Statutory and Common Law Claims to Protect Online Privacy[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
open Information privacy law (recommend a group or a narrow focus) open open

Fourth Amendment as Applied to Online Privacy[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
shaonbarman (talk · contribs) United States v. Cotterman Kaffyne (talk · contribs) pengstr (talk · contribs)
pengstr (talk · contribs) United States v. Graham Applecupcake (talk · contribs) Yaj57 (talk · contribs)
open In re Applications of the United States of America for Historical Cell Site Data open open
open Jewel v. NSA & Hepting v. AT&T open open
open House v. Napolitano open open

Civil and Criminal Hacking (The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act)[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
dsheffie (talk · contribs) United States v. Ivanov justinesherry (talk · contribs) Boalt Bear (talk · contribs)
qqz (talk · contribs) International Airport Centers v. Citrin dsheffie (talk · contribs) shaonbarman (talk · contribs)
stromhylden (talk · contribs) United States v. Nosal klueska (talk · contribs) noahj_ucb (talk · contribs)
Olga.bk (talk · contribs) United States v. John Gabriel.guardado (talk · contribs) Fmyd (talk · contribs)
open Lee v. PMSI, Inc. open open
open Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers' International Union open open
iristotle (talk · contribs) United_States_v._Neil_Scott_Kramer inwyrd (talk · contribs) ghoople (talk · contribs)

Online Anonymous Speech and the First Amendment[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
justinesherry (talk · contribs) Krinsky v. Doe 6 stromhylden (talk · contribs) keynachow (talk · contribs)
Radolfo (talk · contribs) Doe v. Shurtleff xxiao_ucb (talk · contribs) jk214 (talk · contribs)
keynachow (talk · contribs) Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada Radolfo (talk · contribs) Panimo (talk · contribs)
open Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-1,495 open open
inwyrd (talk · contribs) The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. keynachow (talk · contribs) PacificWonderland (talk · contribs)


Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
jk214 (talk · contribs) Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc. Panimo (talk · contribs) dsheffie (talk · contribs)
lilylolo (talk · contribs) Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen jk214 (talk · contribs) DrewFisher (talk · contribs)

Virtual Property[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
klueska (talk · contribs) CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. ghoople (talk · contribs) qqz (talk · contribs)
open America Online, Inc. v. IMS open open
open America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc. open open
open America Online, Inc. v. Prime Data Systems, Inc. open open
open Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek open open
open Oyster Software v. Forms Processing open open
Panimo (talk · contribs) School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz DrewFisher (talk · contribs) MktFuruya (talk · contribs)
open Omega World Travel v. Mummagraphics, Inc. open open

Other Topics[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-review)
Tristan Lall (talk · contribs) United States v. Spy Factory, Inc. qqz (talk · contribs) richardchao (talk · contribs)
Boaltie (talk · contribs) Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. lilylolo (talk · contribs) Stromhylden (talk · contribs)
richardchao (talk · contribs) Young v. Facebook, Inc. PacificWonderland (talk · contribs) Applecupcake (talk · contribs)
Applecupcake (talk · contribs) People v. Diaz pengstr (talk · contribs) Olga.bk (talk · contribs)
PacificWonderland (talk · contribs) Cambridge University Press v. Patton Boaltie (talk · contribs) lilylolo (talk · contribs)
MktFuruya (talk · contribs) Winny copyright infringement case open xxiao_ucb (talk · contribs)
open Redbox Automated Retail LLC v. Universal City Studios LLLP open open
Yaj57 (talk · contribs) Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Tristan Lall (talk · contribs) ag20120101 (talk · contribs)
ghoople (talk · contribs) Ley Sinde shibaidi (talk · contribs) iristotle (talk · contribs)
open In re Boucher open open
open United States v. Kirschner open open
open United States v. Fricosu open open
open United States v. Google Inc. open open
open In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011 open open
Taliashwartz (talk · contribs) Cyberbullying: People v. Marquan M., 2014 WL 2931482 (Ct. App. NY July 1, 2014) open (talk · contribs) open (talk · contribs)

Editing Resources[edit]

Your Articles's Outline[edit]

  • If you are summarizing a case, the outline used by the Wikiproject on Supreme Court cases is a good overall structure to start from for summarizing any case, whether it was decided by the Supreme Court or not.

Technical Guidelines[edit]


References generally[edit]

Wikipedia articles need to be referenced using reliable sources, to ensure verifiability. Even if you don't follow every guideline (here or elsewhere), the most important consideration is to cite your sources somehow. More advanced discussion of referencing code can be found at Help:Footnotes.

Wikipedia references inspire strong opinions. Users have created several referencing styles, and have often strategically seeded the documentation to refer to one style or another, to the exclusion of alternatives. Attempts at top-down standardization have not been successful, and there is substantial disagreement about the relative merits of various styles with respect to features (e.g. extraction of metadata), readability (e.g. on various screen sizes), compatibility (e.g. among Internet browsers, especially old ones), accessibility (e.g. for screen readers for the blind) and other things.

With this in mind, this is not the only "right" way to do references, but you may nevertheless find it more convenient than alternatives.

To reference a fact in Wikipedia, create an entry in the reference list (once), and a series of inline references (whenever that resource is cited). This process is standardized with several templates and markup tags.

A good citation to Baker v. Selden, a United States Supreme Court case, will appear in the reference list as:

Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).

I made that reference with the following code:

<ref name="USSupremeCourt1">{{Cite court
|litigants=Baker v. Selden

Note that some fields in the {{Cite court}} template can be left blank if you don't have certain information. If you believe that some fields aren't relevant at all, just omit them completely.

In the text of the article, the inline reference will appear as a superscripted, bracketed, numbered hyperlink:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.[1]

You should name your references with a unique identifier in HTML-like format: <ref name="USSupremeCourt1"> ... </ref>, and fill in the contents. Thereafter, references identified as "USSupremeCourt1" will not need to have all the citation information filled in. Though you can create these inline references with <ref name="USSupremeCourt1" /> tags, it is simpler to use the {{R}} template, like {{R|"USSupremeCourt1"}}. (This is especially concise when citing several items together: {{R|"USSupremeCourt1"|"CaliforniaLawReview1"|"Lemley1"}}.) Choose the identifiers based on the source. Choose the order of the citations in order of relevance to the text (or alphabetically when there's no preference).

The inline reference used above was created with this code:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.{{R|"USSupremeCourt1"}}

While you will frequently find the <ref></ref> tags embedded in the middle of a page's code (at the point where the reference is made), it is frequently less confusing to use "list-defined references", which collects all of the filled-in references together in a single list at the end of a page, in the References section. For example:

<ref name="CaliforniaLawReview1">  ...  </ref>
<ref name="Lemley1">  ...  </ref>
<ref name="USSupremeCourt1">  ...  </ref>

As you saw before (with the Baker case example), there are templates that help you fill out references in a standard way. {{Cite court}} and {{Citation}} are good ones to use. You aren't obligated to use these templates, but they will generally simplify your task of formatting references consistently. They also improve articles by making them substantially easier to parse with automated tools.


Explanatory footnotes can be contained in a separate reference list, as follows:


This usually precedes the References section. To insert a footnote, use: {{R|This is a footnote.|group="Note"}}. If you wish to enter a reference within a footnote, use a special workaround: {{#tag:ref|This is a footnote.{{R|This is a reference.}}|group="Note"}}.

Facts and sources[edit]

Wikipedia distinguishes between citing a fact contained in a judicial opinion, and mentioning the case itself. If you're referring to a fact, definitely cite the case using a standard format as above so that it appears as a reference in the article's reference list. If you're just indicating the existence of another case, wikilink to its article (or to what the article might be called, if the article doesn't yet exist).

Finally, remember that when referencing a judicial opinion, you're citing a primary source with respect to the decision, and a secondary source with respect to the facts of the case. WP:PSTS documents Wikipedia policy for properly dealing with sources. In particular: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."


To the extent possible, provide links to publicly-available versions of all court opinions mentioned. Good sources of Federal opinions are and


How to cite to the United States Code (U.S.C.)


In general, provide links to other articles of relevance within Wikipedia. You can do this within an article by enclosing the link target's title in two sets of square brackets. For example, wikilink is generated with [[wikilink]].

Use the See also and External links sections of articles to contain standalone links. With few exceptions, external links are generally avoided in the main body of an article; instead, they are contained in the References and External links sections.

Categorization and orphaned pages[edit]

Choose a Category/Categories for the page you edit
One of the following categories might fit the page you edit:

or look for a better category in the Category tree.

Don't let the page you edit be an orphan
Click the "What links here" link in the toolbox on the left-hand margin of the page you edit and make sure it has at least three incoming links (from pages other than this one) and think about what other pages in Wikipedia ought to link to the page you edit and then add such links.

Infobox templates[edit]

Some articles, particularly case summaries, have an Infobox on the right-hand side, providing key details of the case. If you would like to use such an Infobox, here are some that may be of use:

Other Infoboxes are topical rather than court-specific. You can see a list of some of these at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Law page.

Wikipedia policies[edit]

As you work on your Wikipedia project, you should keep in mind the Wikipedia policies we've discussed. Being aware of what the Wikipedia community expects both in terms of content and technically will help you to avoid mistakes. BE SURE TO DO THIS.

If you want to be particularly conscious of formatting and style, follow the guidelines from the Wikipedia manual of style.

Brian's 15-point Wikipedia Project Checklist a.k.a. HOW TO SUCCEED AT YOUR WIKI PROJECT[edit]

  • Use this checklist not only in the initial writing of an article, but also as a first reviewer of a classmate's contribution.

I will likely review projects with something like the following checklist in mind. This list is based in part on Wikipedia's The perfect article, which you might also want to read, although, don't worry, I'm not expecting "perfect" articles.

Some of the following will only apply to those working on entire pages. Re-interpret or disregard where you have a more narrowly-focused project. In no particular order:

  1. Does the contribution appear to be cut and paste from an existing source without appropriate citation? [Nothing will make me less pleased. Don't do this.]
  2. Does the lead section provide a stand-alone concise summary of the article? See: Lead section and for an even more thorough treatment see: Guide to writing better articles.
  3. Is field-specific jargon avoided where possible and explained where necessary? I.e., is the general lay audience of an encyclopedia adequately kept in mind?
  4. Are wikilinks, i.e., links to other Wikipedia articles, provided where appropriate?
  5. Is the page edited an orphan? See "What links here" in the Toolbox on the left margin. If so, find relevant articles elsewhere and create wikilinks to the page you are editing.
  6. Does the contribution maintain a neutral point of view, consist of verifiable statements, and avoid becoming original research/opinion?
  7. Are facts cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date? Are additional references for further reading provided?
  8. Is the contribution clear; written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain clear prose; free of redundant language?
  9. Correct grammar, verb tenses, and spelling? Common mistake: multiple verb tenses throughout article. Most of the topics of these articles describe past events, so use past tense consistently throughout. "The plaintiff argued...The defendant responded...The court decided..." NOT The Plaintif argues...The defendant responds...The court decides..."
  10. Is the page categorized appropriately?
  11. In general are the reasons why the article topic is notable made clear, providing enough detail on important aspects, without providing too much detail on minor points?
  12. Are links provided to publicly-available versions of all primary sources, such as court opinions? Are citations done properly?
  13. Are references formatted properly? See technical guidelines on our project page where it explains: <ref name="Baker">''Baker v. Selden'', [ 101 U.S. 99] (1879).</ref> Subsequent references to the same source then just need <ref name="Baker" /> and see generally Referencing for beginners.
  14. Is there an Infobox Template that could be used on this page? Read the summary of these on our WikiProject page. For example, there are separate templates for District Court cases, Circuit Court Cases, and for various legal topics. Ask if you are unsure what sort of Infobox is most appropriate.
  15. Is the "educational assignment" template included on the article's discussion page?

Brian's Guidelines for Second Reviewers (Peer Review)[edit]

  • Use the following checklist as a second reviewer of a classmate's contribution.
  1. You should expect to spend as much time on a second review as you did on writing your initial article. Do a thorough, substantive, edit. Nothing is off limits. You can do a total re-write if it's needed.
  2. Cite-check every reference in the article. That means, look at each reference and confirm that it supports the point that the article cites it for.
  3. Try to find additional relevant sources not already cited and add them to the article.
  4. Make sure that the citations are formatted in a consistent manner and that none of them are simply a bare URL.
  5. Once you are familiar with the subject matter of the article, try to think of a relevant aspect of the topic that is not covered at all or not covered enough and add that information to the article, with sources.
  6. Think carefully about whether the article makes its notability obvious and if necessary, add a discussion of critical scholarship, commentary, or reactions on the subject of the article.
  7. If some aspect of the article could be better illustrated by adding an image (cc-licensed or public domain and available from Wikimedia Commons) then add such images with suitable captions.
  8. If after thorough review and attempts to find additional sources, images, etc. you still believe that the article is essentially perfect as is and that you could not even make 10 edits to improve the article, then review the Good article criteria and the Guide for nominating good articles and then nominate the article for Good article status. Then, instead of editing this masterpiece, participate in the review of another article in the Good article nomination process within the same subject category where you listed your classmate's article.

(Click to return to your main course page and continue.)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference USSupremeCourt1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).