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
Why Being Locked Out of Frontier AI is The Sovereignty Threat Canada Missed 
Blocked Twice: How Bill C-34’s Kids’ Social Media Ban Would Compound the Online News Act’s Harm to Young Canadians’ News Access 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 275: David Loukidelis on Why Stripping Privacy Enforcement from Canada’s Privacy Commissioner in Bill C-36 is Unnecessarily Risky Policy 
The Data on Australia’s Social Media Ban: The Better the Privacy Protection, The Less Effective the Ban 
Shaky Ground Gets Shakier: What the U.S. Supreme Court’s Location Data Decision Means for Bill C-22
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 …”