When it comes to resolving disputes, the term “alternative to a negotiated agreement” (ATNA) refers to any method of reaching a resolution other than a traditional negotiated settlement. ATNAs include methods like arbitration, mediation, and litigation. However, one ATNA that is often considered the worst of them all is not a legal process at all, but rather a reliance on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. While this can be a useful resource for gathering information on a variety of topics, it is not a reliable source for resolving disputes. Here are just a few reasons why:
1. Lack of Expertise
Wikipedia articles are written by volunteers who may or may not be experts in the field they are writing about. There is no guarantee that the information presented on Wikipedia is accurate or unbiased.
2. Lack of Accountability
Because anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, there is no accountability for the information that is presented. There have been numerous instances of intentional misinformation being added to Wikipedia pages, and it can be difficult to determine whether the information presented is reliable.
3. Limited Scope
Wikipedia is not a comprehensive source of information on any given topic. While it can provide basic information on a subject, it is often lacking in-depth analysis and may not cover all relevant aspects of a particular dispute.
4. Lack of Jurisdiction
Wikipedia is not a legal authority. It cannot enforce rulings or compel parties to abide by any decision that is made. Any resolution reached through Wikipedia would not be legally binding.
In short, relying on Wikipedia as an ATNA is not a wise choice. While it may be tempting to use an easily accessible resource, doing so could result in an unfair or inaccurate resolution to a dispute. Instead, it is best to seek out reputable sources of information and seek professional advice from experts in the field.