Laughable idea. At Mind Matters News: Can you trust Wikipedia to decide your courtroom fate?
Should judges and lawyers rely on Wikipedia to guide court case decisions? Researchers devised clever test to see if they do. Meanwhile, U.S. courts have brushed it off:
The convenience of Wikipedia for quick searches via voice or keyboard input does not mean its information is accurate, reliable, or trustworthy. Wisely, many U.S. courts have tamed the impulse to resort to the Wikipedia shortcut. Some writers still push to elevate Wikipedia’s status as a truth source — hopefully the courts will never surrender to the notion of “democratic” truth posted by unknown wikiphiles.Richard W. Stevens, “Can you trust Wikipedia to decide your courtroom fate?” at Mind Matters News
Wikipedia’s misrepresentations of ID may well be a norm, not an exception.
Takehome: Generally, American courts have pointedly — and very advisedly — rejected any reliance on Wikipedia as a source of facts in the courtroom.
You may also wish to read: Wikipedia’s bias meets a free-speech alternative. The famously free encyclopaedia’s pages on abortion, communism, and historical figures reveal a left-leaning bias. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view “is dead”, declares co-founder Larry Sanger, who is now launching a free-speech alternative.