WebProNews

A court has ruled that Wikipedia entries are not legitimate sources for dictating a court ruling. Shockingly, it was a U.S. Appeals Court that decided this in response to a previous ruling, rather than being taken as a given in the first place. Ars Technica explains:

The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.

The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.

The official ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit can be read here (PDF). The fact that this even had to be appealed seems pretty absurd, especially when Wikipedia blatantly refers to itself as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Ryan Singel at Wired writes, "Future U.S. asylum seekers are well advised to make sure the Wikipedia page about, say, Burma's repressive government are adequately dire before submitting their application." It is unclear whether or not MySpace blogs and fictional Twitter tweets are still admissible as reputable resources.