Helena Haapio: Lawyers as Designers, Engineers and Innovators: Better Legal Documents through Information Design and

Visualization. In: Erich Schweighofer et al. (Eds.) Transparency. Proceedings of the 17th International Legal Informatics
Symposium IRIS 2014. Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft OCG, Wien 2014, p. 451–458 (ISBN 978-3-85403-302-8). Also
published in Jusletter IT, 20 February 2014, http://jusletter-it.weblaw.ch/en/issues/2014/IRIS/2541.html (subscription required)

LAWYERS AS DESIGNERS,
ENGINEERS AND INNOVATORS:
BETTER LEGAL DOCUMENTS THROUGH
INFORMATION DESIGN AND VISUALIZATION

Helena Haapio
Business Law Teacher & Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Vaasa / International Contract Counsel, Lexpert Ltd
Pohjoisranta 20, 00170 Helsinki, FI
Helena.Haapio@lexpert.com; http://www.lexpert.com

Keywords: Document design, information design, information products, Legal Design Jams,
legal writing, readability, simplification, usability, user-friendliness, visualization
Abstract Legal materials are widely available, online and offline. But are they actually read
and understood? Empirical research shows that this is not always the case. Turning
to lawyers does not necessarily help: legal advice may be too complex to be useful. If
legal documents are ignored or misunderstood by those who are expected to read
and act upon them, there is something seriously wrong. A profound change is
required. After introducing research-based criteria of good documents, this paper
illustrates, with case studies, how information design and visualization have been
applied to improve legal documents: Wikimedia Foundation’s new, user-friendly
trademark policy; a law firm’s award-winning advice letter template; and complex
legal texts transformed into easy-to-use layered information. The results demonstrate
how a fresh, innovative approach to design practices enables the production of better
legal documents: legally sound, while easier for users to understand and act upon.

1. The Makings of Good (or Better) Legal Documents

In the case of most products, it is easy to tell good ones from bad. Yet legal products are different.
Whether we look at laws, letters of advice, policies, or terms of use, it is not always easy to agree on
which are the “better” ones or what “good” means in this context. Does it mean precise and
comprehensive, or perhaps easy to access and work with? Should it be judged on substance,
language, style, impact – or perhaps all of these? And who is the ultimate judge?
Empirical research shows that legislation is difficult to read if not incomprehensible to most
citizens.1 And not just legislation: other law-related texts that seem perfect for their writers may be
close to non-readable for their readers. If laws or legal materials are ignored or misunderstood by
those who are expected to read and act upon them, there is something seriously wrong. There must
be a better way.
This paper views legal documents as information products2 and looks for ways to communicate
their contents more clearly and effectively. It builds on the principles of information design: “the

1
See, e.g., Curtotti & McCreath 2013 and UK Office of the Parliamentary Counsel 2013.
2
For information products generally, see Orna 2005; for contracts as information products, see Haapio 2013.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2651066

process of identifying, selecting, organizing, composing, and presenting information to an audience
so that it can be used efficiently and effectively by that audience to achieve a specific purpose.“3
This paper argues that the ultimate judges as to what makes a “good” document – legal or otherwise
– should be the end-users: those impacted by or expected to act upon the document: in case of
legislation, citizens or organizations; in case of legal advice or transactional documents, the client,
perhaps also the client’s (potential) customers, suppliers, and so on, depending on the context.
For the purposes of this paper, a precise definition of legal documents is not needed: the concept is
used in a wide meaning. In addition to documents creating legal rights and obligations or containing
legal information4, it includes documents that are often produced by lawyers, such as end-user
licenses, contracts, memoranda, advice letters, opinions, policies, employee handbooks, by-laws,
and terms of use. While the examples and case studies used in this paper represent particular fields
of application, much of what is discussed here can be applied to a wide range of documents,
including legislative and transactional documents as well as materials explaining them.

1.1. What Is Wrong with Current Legal Documents?

“There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its
content.” Fred Rodell, Professor or Law, Yale University. 5
A look at today’s legal documents reveals that many would benefit from a complete overhaul –
assuming that they are expected to be read and understood. Legal writing seems to be the norm,
even if the vast majority of readers do not have law degrees and may be confused or intimidated by
such writing.6 New people entering the field as drafters may question the style at first, but adopt it
as part of the culture. Newcomers, too, want to make their documents look “professional” and
“legal”. 7 So they continue drafting documents that users find non-readable or only lawyer-readable.
The comments about legal writing cited above were made by Fred Rodell in an article published in
1936. This criticism still applies to today’s legal documents. Their drafters tend to prefer legalese
and “tested language” presumed to have a clearly established and “settled” meaning. The result is
often a writing style that has, according to one critic, four outstanding characteristics. It is “(1)
wordy, (2) unclear, (3) pompous, and (4) dull”. 8 “Tested language” and “settled” meaning refer to
language that has been the subject of litigation. Which raises the question: why rely on language
that resulted in litigation in the first place?9 While such language may help to win a battle in court,
it does not help those who want to avoid such conflict. Moving from legalese to plain language
certainly helps, 10 yet it cannot solve all the problems alone. A more profound change is required.

1.2. Characteristics of Good Documents

There is no consensus about the characteristics and qualities that are required to make a legal
document “good”. If we understand legal documents as information products, all good writing –

3
Hayhoe 2012, 23. See also Redish 2000, 163: the skill and practice of developing documents that work for their users.
4
For attempts to define legal information, see, e.g., Richards 2009, with references.
5
Rodell 1936, 38.
6
According to the UK Office of the Parliamentary Counsel 2013, 1,”the digital age has made it easier for people to
find the law of the land; but once they have found it, they may be baffled. The law is regarded by its users as intricate
and intimidating. … even professional users can find law complex, hard to understand and difficult to comply with”.
7
For path dependence, inertia, and status quo bias in contract design and drafting, see Haapio 2013, 49-52.
8
Mellinkoff 1963, 23. Mellinkoff (Id., 27) further states, citing Rodell’s above-mentioned article: “The language of the
law is ‘full of long sentences, awkward constructions, and fuzzy-wuzzy words.’ The result is often nothing less than a
failure of communication.”
9
Similarly, related to contracts, e.g., Haapio 2013, with references.
10
See, e.g., Kimble 2006 and 2012.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2651066

legal or otherwise – begins with an understanding of what the audience needs and expects, and
adapting one’s message and documents accordingly. Even the best legal writing is misplaced if it
does not serve the needs of the users.
Seeing legal documents as products (artifacts, devices) makes it natural to view their usability and
user-friendliness no differently from how usability and user-friendliness are viewed in the context
of other human-made objects. Inspired by David Howarth’s book on law as engineering, 11 this paper
argues that, like engineers, lawyers could (and should) seek to produce more useful devices:
documents that are easier for users to understand and work with.
Readability is no doubt an important aspect of good documents. In their book What Makes a Book
Readable, William S. Gray and Bernice E. Leary identified more than 200 elements that affect the
ease (or difficulty) of reading. They grouped these elements under four main headings: (1) content;
(2) style; (3) format; and (4) features of organization (chapters, sections, headings, and paragraphs).
Of these four, the authors found that content was most important, with a slight margin over style. 12
A range of organizations assess documents for clarity.13 Information design scholars have
developed research-based criteria for good (or clear) documents and benchmarked documents for
clarity and usability.14 The Simplification Centre uses the following four basic criteria:15
Content: the selection of information to be communicated
Structure: how the information is organized, sequenced and linked
Language: how the information is expressed in words
Design: the typography, layout and graphic design of the document
The Simplification Centre has mapped these criteria into a 4 by 3 matrix shown in the following
figure (Figure 1), where the horizontal dimension shows the four types of input that the producer of
the document applies in creating the document, and the vertical dimension shows three aspects of
the reader’s response to the document, which together determine its effectiveness:
STRUCTURE

LANGUAGE
CONTENT

DESIGN

FEEL

KNOW

DO

Figure 1. A Matrix of Criteria for Clear Documents16

11
Howarth 2013 sees the work of lawyers as designing useful devices for clients; according to the author, lawyers can
become more innovative and effective as designers of new devices by using the methods of engineers. See also
Mitchell 2013 (discussing how lawyers can make their work-product a better product).
12
Gray & Leary 1935, 31.
13
For a summary, see Evans 2011.
14
See Waller 2011, Evans 2011, and other Technical Papers available on the Simplification Centre’s website.
15
Evans 2011, 3. – The criteria used by the Simplification Centre have been further divided into sixteen sub-criteria; see
Waller 2011. – For similar criteria for good contracts, see Haapio 2013, with references.
As shown in Figure 1, the readers‘ response is viewed through three different aspects:
Feeling: the readers’ attitude and their emotional response (“feel”)
Understanding: what they know from reading it (“know”)
Action: what they are able to do as a result (“do”)
The above matrix and criteria can be applied to legal documents as well: these, too, can (and
should) be assessed in terms of content, structure, language and design. As regards the readers’
response, the writer/producer might ask questions such as: “Will the intended audience use this
document?”; “Does it appear interesting?”; “Does it appear relevant?” and “Will the audience take
the time to read this document?17 If these questions are answered in the negative and the documents
are not read, they are unlikely to work. While the writers of legal documents may not have
emphasized readers’ attitude or response, these questions highlight the need for doing so, in order to
craft documents that are actually going to be read and stand a chance of being acted upon.
While the above criteria are useful for designing better legal documents, there is something missing:
the criteria do not address the legal qualities of the documents. Good legal documents as envisioned
in this paper cannot omit this aspect entirely. Good legal documents need to be legally sound, and
the possibility of a dispute and judges or opposing counsel as readers needs to be kept in mind. This
tends to add to the length and complexity of legal documents. After recognizing the different users,
the document designer has to consider their different needs and requirements and prioritize them.
The following examples demonstrate that it is possible to bring together what is desirable from a
usability point of view with what is legally sound.

2. Examples of Using Information Design and Visualization in Legal Documents

The ultimate goal of information design is clear communication and enabling users to interact with
the information. The selection of methods used is based on what is suited to express the particular
information to the particular user group in a particular context. For easier reading, more prominence
needs to be given to what is more relevant to the user.18 Text alone can seldom provide prominence
or salience to a piece of information. Visualization – adding icons, charts, tables, and images to
supplement text – can be used to do this.
Information design and visualization offer legal document drafters new and better methods to truly
serve their audiences. It is not enough to know how to write well; one should also learn to engage
others in the process, elicit information, and communicate the core message effectively to the
different readers. If we take the goal of better legal documents seriously, the drafter’s job changes
from merely drafting clear and concise documents to designing communication with multiple user
groups and varying information needs. This also involves responding to and balancing their
different needs and requirements through layered information and other means. The following
examples illustrate how this can be and has been done, using insights from information design.

2.1. Wikimedia Foundation’s New, User-Friendly Trademark Policy; Legal Design Jams

Wikimedia Foundation introduced a trademark policy in 2009. In 2013, their legal team prepared a
new draft trademark policy to strike a better balance between the interests of the Wikimedia
community and trademark law and to create a document that better communicates how people can

16
Evans 2011, 3. The Simplification Centre’s resources are used with the kind permission of Rob Waller, Director of
the Simplification Centre: see email message from Rob Waller to the author of 2 January 2013, on file with the
author.
17
Evans 2011, 11, with references.
18
Albers 2007.
use Wikimedia trademarks.19 In preparing a new draft document, the legal team relied on
information design principles to make the draft user-friendly. The simplicity of language was one
factor in enhancing its usability, as were appearance and format. The legal team also tried to
organize the document in a logical manner so that users could quickly find provisions relevant to
them without having to study the entire document.20
Unlike how legal documents are typically prepared, the new draft policy was developed in public,
“the Wiki way”. The first step was for the legal team to solicit comments on how the policy should
be revised and then prepare a draft based on that input. They teamed up with legal information
researchers and practitioners to organize two workshops, Legal Design Jams,21 to brainstorm about
how to make the policy more user-friendly using colors, visuals and other information design
methods.22 The Legal Design Jams in Stanford and San Francisco brought together professionals
and students with law, design, computer science and policy backgrounds to work and learn together.
Figure 2 shows an excerpt from their work, a visualized summary of the new draft trademark
policy, asking the core question “May I use the Wikimedia marks?“ and grouping the answers under
traffic light colors: green; “Yes, please!“ (use does not require permission), yellow: “Yes, but
first…“ (permission must be sought), and red: “ Sorry, no“ (for uses that are prohibited).

Figure 2. Excerpt from Wikimedia Trademark Policy Draft for Community Discussion23

Next, the draft was posted on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki for feedback from the Wikimedia community
across the world. The initial comments suggest that people like the new design and find the
document approachable and easy to read. According to Yana Welinder, Wikimedia Foundation’s
Legal Counsel, the design and readability of the draft also improved the discussion of the draft:
people could get a better overview and understand the legal terms, so they could become involved
in the discussion and comment on the substance of the terms. It helped them propose revisions or
point out scenarios that were not yet addressed by the draft. 24

19
See Welinder 2013a and 2013b and Welinder & Walls 2013.
20
Welinder 2013a.
21
The idea of Legal Design Jams – a concept coined by Stefania Passera – is borrowed from hackathons and service
jams. A Legal Design Jam brings together people from different fields ”to give an extreme user-centric makeover to a
legal document. … to rethink and innovate the very concept of what a legal document should be, look and feel.” The
participants create prototypes of a new version or revised parts of the document, including visualizations, new layout,
”rethinking the structure of the document in terms of good storytelling and, where possible, simplifying its language”.
See http://legaldesignjam.com/about/. See also Haapio & Passera 2013, Hagan 2013, and Welinder & Walls 2013.
22
See Welinder 2013a and 2013b, Welinder & Walls 2013, and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trademark_policy.
23
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trademark_policy, available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
License.
24
Welinder 2013b.
2.2. A Law Firms’ Award-winning Template for Pragmatic Legal Advice Letters

When Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Corrs), an Australian law firm, consulted with their key clients
about what they look for when seeking advice from lawyers, clients raised common themes such as
“be concise” and “make a practical recommendation”, and “declutter the issues to show you
understand the situation”. 25 These themes became Corrs’ basic criteria for designing their new
advice template. Their goal was clear, incisive advice that clients can easily act upon.26
The advice template has a front page summary that gives the answer and recommendation upfront
and a "traffic light" risk analysis table that identifies and rates legal risks on a scale from low to
high. It incorporates document design principles which make it easy to read: a significant shift away
from the traditional long letter of advice which does not necessarily offer a definitive opinion. 27
The modular design of the advice template consists of three parts: 1) the front page summary
captures the advice upfront; 2) the body explores the key issues, and 3) the annexes contain the
background facts and details. For those seeking a short advice, the front page summary captures the
question, answer, risk analysis and next steps. This promotes brevity and clear expression. The
clearly defined sections highlight the key issues by having main headings phrased as questions to
engage the reader; section summaries in bold at the start of each section give a brief answer to the
question; and the numbered paragraphs make the advice navigable. 28 Corrs has sought to balance
good design and the client's perspective with their lawyers' perspective and ease of use. 29

2.3. Complex Legal Texts Transformed into Easy-to-use Layered Information

The Corrs advice template example above illustrates how layered information can be used as a way
to simplify legal documents. This means designing a document so that it can be read first at a
summary level that gives an overall understanding, with additional information available if needed.
This structure is widely used in writing for the World Wide Web, where readers can click on a link
to find more details. It is also effective in printed documents.
Several projects have looked into the simplification of legal materials, such as online policies and
terms and conditions, seeking to solve the problem of non-accessible legal texts.30 Creative
Commons licenses31 rely on layered information: first, there are simple, recognizable icons that can
be clicked on to reveal a plain-language version of the relevant text. If additional information is
required, the full text is also available just one click away. As illustrated in Figure 3, there is the so-
called Legal Code (the “lawyer readable” version, the full license), the Commons Deed (the “human
readable” version), and the “machine readable” version of the license. 32 To choose a license, a
creator of a work who wishes to become a Creative Commons licensor answers a few simple
questions, such as “Do I want to allow commercial use?” and “Do I want to allow derivative

25
Corrs Incisive Advice Template 2012. The web page shows a sample image and summary of the advice template.
26
Id.
27
Id. – Corrs template won a Design Award in the Business Service category at the Australian International Design
Awards 2012. See http://corrs.com.au/news/corrs-incisive-advice-honoured-at-australian-international-design-
awards/.
28
Corrs Incisive Advice Template 2012.
29
The template is integrated into Corrs’ word processing application. Dialog boxes allow lawyers to insert basic
information, such as client details, and the shell of the advice is automatically created (including front page summary
framework and risk analysis table) ready for the content to be incorporated. Corrs provides its lawyers with a series of
visual tools (tables, timelines, flowcharts) that they can insert into the document. See Id.
30
For a compilation in the context of the Common Terms project, see Lannerö 2012.
31
See Creative Commons n.d., http://creativecommons.org/licenses.
32
Id.: “Taken together, these three layers of licenses ensure that the spectrum of rights isn’t just a legal concept. It’s
something that the creators of works can understand, their users can understand, and even the Web itself can
understand.”
works?” The introductory text to the Creative Commons licenses invites the reader to think of the
Commons Deed “as a user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath”. 33

Figure 3. The Three Layers of Creative Commons Licenses34

Experiments exist that prove how credit card agreements and other consumer contracts as well as
commercial contracts can benefit from a new, more user-friendly approach.35 Further projects have
aimed to simplify, for example, an online game’s terms of service, a rail network’s disclaimer, and a
law firm’s standard terms of engagement. 36 These examples rely on layered information,
visualization, and other information design methods. Together, they demonstrate that it is possible
to bring together what is desirable from a usability point of view with what is legally sound. New
templates and automation, once available, can make these methods accessible to a wider audience. 37

3. Conclusion
Legal documents are not just about the law – they are also about information and communication.
When drafting legal documents, the focus is typically on the content and legal concerns, rather than
the documents’ appearance or “look and feel”. However, for those whose rights and duties depend
on the documents, these aspects matter. Overly complex documents may be ignored or
misunderstood, and their implementation may fail.
Information design offers tools and methods that help elicit information and communicate complex
messages clearly and effectively. Using these methods at the document preparation stage, drafters
can engage others in the process and collaborate with them to produce better drafts. Layered
information and visualization can make the core message easy to find, understand and act upon.
Drafters can adopt from designers and engineers a fresh, innovative approach to document design:
one that helps them produce documents that meet or exceed lawyers’ and other users’ expectations.

4. References
Albers, Michael J., Information Salience and Interpreting Information. In: SIGDOC '07 Proceedings of the ACM international
conference on Design of communication, 22–24 October, ACM, New York, NY, pp. 80–86. (2007).
Clarity2010 Blog. http://blog.clarity2010.com last accessed 26 December 2013.

33
Id.
34
Image released under a CreativeCommons Attribution 3.0 licence. For a ”human-readable” summary of the so-called
Legal Code (the full license), see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.
35
See, eg. US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 2011, Passera & Haapio 2013, Haapio & Passera 2013,
and Haapio 2013, with references.
36
Clarity2010 Blog. For further examples of visualizing legal information, see, e.g., Haapio & Passera 2013.
37
For automating visualization, see Passera, Haapio & Curtotti 2014. The authors experiment with computer-generated
contract visualizations. The prototypes point to the possibility of future document assembly engines incorporating
visualizations in the text they generate, thus significantly reducing entry barriers for future document designers.
Corrs Incisive Advice Template, Good Design Australia http://www.gooddesignaustralia.com/awards/past/entry/corrs-incisive-
advice-template/?year=2012 last accessed 26 December 2013. (2012).
Creative Commons, About The Licenses – Creative Commons. http://creativecommons.org/licenses last accessed 26 December 2013
(n.d.).
Curtotti, Michael & McCreath, Eric, A Right to Access Implies a Right to Know: An Open Online Platform for Research on the
Readability of Law. Journal of Open Access to Law, Vol 1, No 1 http://ojs.law.cornell.edu/index.php/joal/article/view/16/17 last
accessed 27 December 2013 (2013).
Evans, Martin, Criteria for Clear Documents: a Survey. Technical paper 8. Simplification Centre, University of Reading.
http://www.simplificationcentre.org.uk/downloads/papers/SC8CriteriaSurvey.pdf last accessed 26 December 2013 (2011).
Gray, William S. & Leary, Bernice E., What Makes a Book Readable. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1935).
Haapio, Helena, Next Generation Contracts: A Paradigm Shift. PhD dissertation. Lexpert Ltd, Helsinki (2013).
Haapio, Helena & Passera, Stefania, Visual law: What lawyers need to learn from information designers. VoxPopuLII Blog post,
May 15. Cornell University Law School. http://blog.law.cornell.edu/voxpop/2013/05/15/visual-law-what-lawyers-need-to-learn-
from-information-designers/ last accessed 26 December 2013 (2013).
Hagan, Margaret, 5 Insights from a Legal Design Jam. The Whiteboard. http://dschool.stanford.edu/fellowships/2013/10/25/5-
insights-from-a-legal-design-jam/ last accessed 26 December 2013 (2013).
Hayhoe, George F., Telling the Future of Information Design. Communication Design Quarterly Review, Vol. 1, 1,
http://sigdoc.acm.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CDQR_1-1_Fall2012.pdf last accessed 26 December 2013 (2012).
Howarth, David, Law as Engineering. Thinking about What Lawyers Do. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham (2013).
Kimble, Joseph, Lifting the Fog of Legalese. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC (2006).
Kimble, Joseph, Writing for Dollars, Writing to Please. The Case for Plain Language in Business, Government, and Law. Carolina
Academic Press, Durham, NC (2012).
Lannerö, Pär, Previewing Online Terms and Conditions – Commonterms Alpha Proposal. 27 January 2012. http://commonterms.net/
commonterms_alpha_proposal.pdf last accessed 7 January 2013 (2012).
Mellinkoff, David, The Language of the Law. Little, Brown & Co., Boston, MA (1963).
Mitchell, Jay A., Putting some product into work-product: corporate lawyers learning from designers. Working Paper. Stanford Law
School, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2325683 last accessed 26 December 2013 (2013).
Orna, Elizabeth, Making Knowledge Visible. Communicationg Knowledge Through Information Products. Gower Publishing,
Aldershot, Hunts (2005).
Passera, Stefania & Haapio, Helena, Transforming contracts from legal rules to user-centered communication tools: A human-
information interaction challenge. Communication Design Quarterly, Vol. 1, 3, 38–45. http://sigdoc.acm.org/wp-content/
uploads/2012/09/CDQ-April-1-3-FINAL.pdf last accessed 26 December 2013 (2013).
Passera, Stefania, Haapio, Helena & Curtotti, Michael, Making the Meaning of Contract Visible – Automating Contract
Visualization. Tagungsband des 17. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions IRIS 2014. Österreichische Computer
Gesellschaft, Wien (2014).
Redish, Janice C. (Ginny), What is information design? Technical Communication, Second Quarter, 163–166.
http://dwheelersite.com/PDFs/Articles%20for%20Reading%20List/Redish%20What%20Is%20Information%20Design.pdf last
accessed 27 December 2013 (2000).
Richards, Rob, What Is Legal Information. http://legalinformatics.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/what-is-legal-information-conference
-paper-final.doc last accessed 27 December 2013 (2009).
Rodell, Fred, Goodbye to Law Reviews. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 23, November, pp. 38–45 (1936).
UK Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, When Laws Become Too Complex: A Review into the Causes of Complex Legislation.
United Kingdom Office of Parliamentary Counsel (2013).
US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau aims to simplify credit card agreements.
7 December 2011. http://www.consumerfinance.gov/pressrelease/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-aims-to-simplify-credit-card-
agreements last accessed 26 December 2013 (2011).
Waller, Rob, What Makes a Good Document? The Criteria We Use. Technical paper 2. Simplification Centre, University of Reading.
http://www.simplificationcentre.org.uk/downloads/papers/SC2CriteriaGoodDoc_v2.pdf last accessed 26 December 2013 (2011).
Welinder, Yana, Call for input on the new trademark policy – Creating a trademark policy the wiki way. Wikimedia blog, 18
November 2013. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/18/call-for-input-on-the-new-trademark-policy/ last accessed 26 December
2013 (2013a).
Welinder, Yana, 10 Days into Developing a Trademark Policy Through a Public Discussion, blog post at Weblogs at Harvard Law
School, 30 November 2013. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/yana/?p=174 last accessed 26 December 2013 (2013b).
Welinder, Yana & Walls, Heather, Designing a user-friendly trademark policy for some of the world’s most recognizable marks.
Wikimedia blog, 29 October 2013. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/10/29/designing-a-user-friendly-trademark-policy/ last accessed
26 December 2013 (2013).