August 7, 2012
Will Algorithms Replace or Assist Human Editors in Production of Legal Content?
How far will the creation of professional legal content be automatically generated is the topic of WK's John Barker post, Algorithmically Assisted Editorial Insight for Professional Publishers. A snip from the conclusion of the post:
I still do not see algorithms replacing editors. But there is an interesting possibility with “low value” content. For example, officially unpublished opinions do not have precedential value. The volume of these opinions is high. Human editors cannot invest valuable resources in summarizing those opinions compared to appellate court opinions. This is an example where automated methods might be sufficient for a customer’s research needs. Of course, automated content enrichment methods could be used to identify for editors those officially unpublished decisions that might be of particular interest. Closer attention is needed into the value of each type of content for professional customers and what combination of human and algorithmic enhancements are necessary to make it actionable.
I am convinced that professional publishers must strike a balance between applying algorithms and editors to content. What is clear is that technology is advancing and what tasks are delegated to computers versus editors will always be in flux. Any thoughts?
It is unusual for a vendor representative involved in tech and publishing to be seen thinking out loud by blogging. Certainly we do not see that from BLaw, Lexis or TR Legal, at least not uncensored and not full of marketing pablum. You may find WK's The Intelligent Solutions Blog interesting and insightful about where WK is heading. At the moment, WK is developing legal solutions for its European markets that may eventually make an appearance in the US market. [JH]