Wikipedia Considered Reliable Authority by Many Judges


Many noted Judges rely on Wikipedia as authority including defining “Blazing Saddles” and “happy hour,” but the US Supreme Court has not yet accepted Wikipedia as authority. The New York Times reported in 2007 that Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and well-known blogger, in Chicago claimed that “Wikipedia is a terrific resource.” Judge Posner went to say:

Partly because it so convenient, it often has been updated recently and is very accurate...It wouldn’t be right to use it in a critical issue. If the safety of a product is at issue, you wouldn’t look it up in Wikipedia.

However in a recent ruling of US v Larson, US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Barbara Milano Keenan overturned a jury conviction for violating, and conspiring to violate, the animal fighting prohibition of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a) (the animal fighting statute) because Juror 177 searched Wikipedia for the definition of "sponsor," one of the elements of the offense under the animal fighting statute. The Wikipedia search was determined to be juror misconduct since Juror 177 relied on definitions not provided in court, but Judge Keenan also pointed out that definitions on Wikipedia are subject to change by public edits and therefore Wikipedia is not reliable. Which is an interesting position since Judge Posner feels the opposite.

It seems to me that Wikipedia is a reliable authority for many lawsuits and will be more widely accepted in the future. What do you think?

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.


AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top