Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia

References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.

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.

Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.

That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"

Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification.

Original here