Wikipedia Not Valid As Evidence In New Jersey

A New Jersey Appellate Division court ruled that Wikipedia is not valid as evidence, primarily because it can be changed by users.

Attorneys for Englewood Cliffs-based Palisades Collection LLC, a debt-collection agency, thought so. They introduced a Wikipedia page into Superior Court in Hackensack to support their argument that Waldwick resident Steven Graubard owed the collection agency $30,000 in credit card debt.

The Wikipedia page was used to show that the agency held the debt, and so was legally able to sue Graubard for payment. The company, after a trial last year, prevailed.

But a New Jersey appeals court has reversed the decision, saying a Wikipedia page doesn’t meet the legal requirement as a “source whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.”

“Anyone with an Internet connection can create a Wikipedia account and change any entry in Wikipedia,” the court wrote in its April 17 opinion. “It is entirely possible for a party in litigation to alter a Wikipedia article, print the article, and thereafter offer it in court in support of any given position,” the court wrote. “Such a malleable source of information is inherently unreliable.”

I'm not particularly surprised at the court's reasoning, but I am surprised that the attorneys seeking to prove the linkage were not able to prove the chain of title on the debt by other means. It's easy enough to find news reports and/or business information from places like the Wall Street Journal or Hoovers or any other research method. They took a shortcut hoping that Wikipedia would be sufficient. It helped them win at trial, but the appeals court took a different view.