http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/a...m-seeker-r.html
The Department of Homeland Security should not use the user-generated Wikipedia to decide whether an asylum seeker can enter the United States, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
Even I can see this as a victory for common-sense. Apparently this wasn't like the other case, where there were BLP concerns in the page. Instead, the Immigration folks decided to look up the type of document an asylum-seeker was presenting to determine if it was able to prove identity.
Full Version: Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia
•Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia
Ars Technica, MA -1 hour ago
By John Timmer | Published: September 02, 2008 - 08:15PM CT References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, ...
View the article
Nice little opinion. The "disturbing disclaimers" language is actually a quote from a 2006 case before the Federal Court of Claims (the court you use to due the Federal government for damages). Here's the actual opinion. Seems pretty clear the defendant's goose is still cooked; they're just getting a remand so they can say, "oh, no, we would have felt the same without Wikipedia." So the remand is probably symbolic, but it's a clear signal that judges--even immigration judges--cannot cite Wikipedia as persuasive authority in the Eighth Circuit (AR, MO, NE, IA, MN, SD, ND).
The rate of Wikipedia citations in opinions appears to have slowed since articles like this, and the high profile story in the New York times early 2007. I think it was a product of clerk laziness and judicial unawareness. Now that judges realize anyone--even the parties--can edit it, they're loath to touch it. Good for them.
EDIT: I didn't see SirFozzie's thread. Please merge there.
The rate of Wikipedia citations in opinions appears to have slowed since articles like this, and the high profile story in the New York times early 2007. I think it was a product of clerk laziness and judicial unawareness. Now that judges realize anyone--even the parties--can edit it, they're loath to touch it. Good for them.
EDIT: I didn't see SirFozzie's thread. Please merge there.
•Court rules Wikipedia not authoritative
Inquirer, UK -29 minutes ago
By Egan Orion: Wednesday, 03 September 2008, 3:13 PM A US APPEALS COURT has ruled that Wikipedia entries, which anyone might edit, are not authoritative ...
View the article
QUOTE(article)
In particular, the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided last Friday that the Department of Homeland Security should not rely upon information found at Wikipedia in deciding whether to admit asylum seekers applying to enter the country.
Looks like this is neither hype nor paparazzi stuff.
QUOTE(Dzonatas @ Wed 3rd September 2008, 1:00pm) 
QUOTE(article)
In particular, the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided last Friday that the Department of Homeland Security should not rely upon information found at Wikipedia in deciding whether to admit asylum seekers applying to enter the country.
Looks like this is neither hype nor paparazzi stuff.
This is a reasonable decision. Here is the Federal Rule of Evidence concerning reliance on reference material (eg "Judicial Notice").
QUOTE( FRE 201( b ) )
A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
All an attorney would need to do is show the court the article history, or better still make a demonstration of altering the article, and that should show a basis for "reasonably questioning" WP as a source.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 3rd September 2008, 7:56pm)
All an attorney would need to do is show the court the article history, or better still make a demonstration of altering the article, and that should show a basis for "reasonably questioning" WP as a source.
Wouldn't WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY in 20-point all caps be sufficient?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.