Wikipedia and the 5 Id. rule

Two bluebook entries to add to my previous list of two:
How to cite Wikipedia
How to cite R.H. Coase's Nature of the Firm

The first is an addendum to my Wikipedia entry. The second is a clarification of the 5 id. in a row rule (Rule 4.1).

Regarding Wikipedia (addendum):
Again, based on my last wikipedia entry, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to cite to wikipedia – it’s enough of a solid information source that it certainly has use at first instance. At the same time, I would temper citing to it for the problems described in a recent article. See Wikipedia to Seek Proof of Credentials (describing concerns about the prevalence of fraud on the Wikipedia site and what the company is planning to do about it). So, as with anything else one cites in his or her law review articles/notes/comments/etc., make sure you know what you are citing is saying what you know is right. Just my two cents.

Regarding the 5 Id. rule:
The bluebook needs to come up with a standard system for the number of id.'s you can use in a row. I've seen journals and law reviews and cases that seem to follow a 5 id. rule, those that follow a 3 id. rule, a 7, and in some cases, I've seen articles that use id. in excess of 20 times in a row. Now, for briefs, I don't know if you necessarily need this rule because of the page constraints and as long as you are in compliance with rule 4.1, I wouldn't think the judge (or his or her clerks) would care. For law review articles, however, I think the id. rule needs to be honed in a bit.

I think the majority of states in which I have looked up to see if they even have a rule that addresses it keeps it to 5. That seems like a fair compromise between 3 and 7 and infinity. So, I would propose that the bluebook adopt a rule something along these lines as part of 4.1 or maybe separate it out into a subrule of 4.1:

"In law review footnotes, use 'id.' when citing the immediate preceding authority within the same footnote or within the immediately preceding footnote when the preceding footnote contains only one authority. The maximum number of times you should use 'id.' in a row is five before repeating the short cite of the authority. (see Rule 10.9). Note that the end of the period at the end of 'id.' is always italicized."

The bolded language would be new. You may also have to put something in about how this doesn't affect Rule 4.2, but I think that would be inherent and necessarily redundant.

As suggested by my new rule, amended Rule 4.1 would be entirely consistent with rule 10.9 for cases. Other schools tend to follow this scheme of my proposed rule; as such, the bluebook should be amended for consistency purposes. See, e.g., BU Law Review Suggestions, Law & Psychology Review, University of Wisconsin/State of Wisconsin (4 id. in a row rule). Cf. ALWD comparison (suggesting that the bluebook already has this rule in 10.9).

Now, to clarify, this is not a change to Rule 10.9; it is an augmentation to Rule 4.1. Let's see it happen.

Tags: bluebook, 5 id. rule, 5 id. in a row rule, rule 4.1, rule 10.9, law review, wikipedia cite