The New York Times has an article about a judgment from an Alabama couple that was 
over-ruled in the US Court of Federal Claims. The reason the judgment from the previous court was over-ruled was because part of the judgement cited Wikipedia.
The reaction from the court above her, the United States Court of Federal Claims, was direct: the materials �culled from the Internet do not � at least on their face � meet� standards of reliability. The court reversed her decision.
Oddly, to cite the �pervasive, and for our purposes, disturbing series of disclaimers� concerning the site�s accuracy, the same Court of Federal Claims relied on an article called �Researching With Wikipedia� found � where else? � on Wikipedia. (The family has reached a settlement, their lawyer said.)
This scares me. A court, no matter their status (local, district, federal, etc) should be allowed to cite Wikipedia for their reasoning in a judgement. Why? Wikipedia can be changed at anytime, by anybody. If they cite a specific instance in Wikipedia, what prevents the person it affects from changing the definition of the judgment and filing suit because of the updated Wikipedia article.
The really scary statistic I have quoted from the NY Times again.
More than 100 judicial rulings have relied on Wikipedia, beginning in 2004, including 13 from circuit courts of appeal, one step below the Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court thus far has never cited Wikipedia.)
Wikipedia is a great for looking up something for personal knowledge, or even for research, but more for a jump-start on where to look. I disagree with its usage in a legally binding way.
Related posts: