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
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 260: What the Government Didn’t Want You To Hear About Bill C-4 And Its Weak Political Party Privacy Rules 
Why the Online Harms Act is the Wrong Way to Regulate AI Chatbots 
More Transparency Not Police Reporting: Navigating the Safety-Privacy Balance for AI ChatBots 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 259: The Privacy and Surveillance Risks of AI Chatbot Reporting to Police 
Nobody Wants This: Senate Rejects Government’s Anti-Privacy Plan for Political Parties By Sending Bill Back to the House With a Sunset Clause
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 …”