-1

I'm really most interested in some of the top contributors who seem to have an insanely broad (as well as deep) base of knowledge about the law spanning diverse (to be fair, seemingly mostly the Anglospheric, and thus common law) jurisdictions.

I'm somewhat interested in the source of your knowledge and how you got it, but probably more interested in what you get out of contributing to stack exchange.

Is it a way to pass the time? Is it about helping others? Do you find it interesting and enjoy researching different nooks and crannies of your field? Do you appreciate the added factor of entropy from letting your research topics be decided by real people's questions and interests?

What is it really about for you?

3
  • 4
    I’m voting to close this question because it does not invite discussion on the workings and policies of Law Stack Exchange
    – user35069
    Commented May 29, 2022 at 20:00
  • What's the reputation threshold for your definition of a "top contributor"?
    – Greendrake
    Commented Jun 4, 2022 at 2:15
  • @Greendrake I don't think it really matters, because I'm interested in everyone's stories who wants to share, but I also didn't really have one in mind. Commented Jun 4, 2022 at 9:50

1 Answer 1

1

What is the background/origin of your legal knowledgebase

For the most part, my background developed from reading case law. Court opinions are most useful for acquainting oneself with legal concepts, doctrines, and argumentation.

A word of caution: Court opinions are not for ascertaining the facts that led to a legal dispute. Depending on their bias, judges can (and do) cherry-pick evidence just to make their decisions look as "factually based". To have a more reliable notion of the facts of a case, one needs to see the actual evidence. At most, court opinions purport to quote the allegedly decisive evidence (usually bits and pieces thereof).

why do you participate on stack exchange?

To help the audience attain self-sufficiency on the legal matters they encounter.

In general, knowledge is power. It helps people become less vulnerable to others' ineptitude and/or misconduct. By "others" I mean not only lawyers, but also physicians, employers, car mechanics, financial advisors, politicians, and so forth. However, law and health are by far the two fields where the consequences of ignorance and blind reliance on a licensed charlatan tend to be most detrimental.

By developing enough awareness of the law, the public would have elements as well as the determination to scrutinize judges and lawyers. In turn, that scrutiny would have dissuasive effect on some of the rampant corruption that goes on in the judiciary's lucrative business.

Is it about helping others?

To a great extent, yes. That is why I dislike when under pretext of "asking for legal advice is off-topic" others close interesting posts about legal, real-life matters. By closing the posts, those users prevent me --and others-- from helping the OP understand his legal issue and work his way out of it.

Do you appreciate the added factor of entropy from letting your research topics be decided by real people's questions and interests?

Not exactly. Others' questions and interests oftentimes are thought-provoking and might prompt me to do some research, but saying that they decide it would be an overstatement.

Other topics such as copyright issues or some politician's latest occurrence on TV are quite recurrent on LawSE, yet I hardly ever am inclined to delve in them.

most interested in some of the top contributors who seem to have an insanely broad (as well as deep) base of knowledge

I cannot consider myself in that category. Nevertheless, the background I have obtained enables me to make a preliminary conjecture [about issues] which upon research oftentimes turns out to be substantially accurate.

Also note that scoring high on Law SE (or any SE site) does not guarantee that the person is that knowledgeable. I am not supposed to single-out anyone, but the truth is that the audience's upvoting is often influenced only on whether the author has a high score even if his answer is devoid of sources or accuracy.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .