The Australian news site News.com.au is currently reporting that "Refugee Tribunal Hit For Relying on Wikipedia." The tribunal's decision was set aside because it has used unreliable information. Ironically, the site was not Wikipedia (as suggested by News.com.au), but rather armeniapedia.org.
Unreliable Information
One Comment
Recent Posts
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act 
Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action
A very recent decision from the Arbitration Center for .EU Disputes ([ link ]) vigorously criticizes the use of Wikipedia:
“… collaborative websites with permissive edits have little probative value. “[A]nyone can alter the content of Wikipedia at any time, casting doubt on the validity of the information contained therein”, the International Trademark Association wrote in a June 23, 2006 letter (published at shapeblog.com/Beresford Wikipedia.pdf).
A Wikipedia article cannot be seen as reliable information in proceedings, as it can be manipulated before the proceedings, to serve the interests of a party …”