Wikipedia - Inadmissible Evidence

In a not-particularly-shocking decision, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of NJ reversed a trial court which had admitted a Wikipedia article into evidence.  The appellate court held that Wikipedia articles are too malleable to be reliable.  This makes sense.

I am reminded of the hilarious scene from a recent "30 Rock" episode where the narcissistic Jenna has landed a role reprising Janis Joplin.  One of the skit writers, Frank, suggested she research Joplin on Wikipedia to make sure she really absorbs the nuances of the singer's character.  Yet prankster Frank had planned -- and carried through -- on his scheme to edit the Joplin Wikipedia article with bizarre and wholly manufactured quirks about the late singer.  The humorous result was that Jenna's Joplin was replete with irrelevant character traits and preferences, none of which made any sense.

The fact is that Wikipedia articles can, and are, edited continuously, often inaccurately.  While some articles no doubt are entirely accurate, this does not hold true for all of them.  Seek out, for example, an article on your favorite topic.  Chances are that you will take issue with the article.  This is not to say that Wikipedia is not extremely helpful and genius in the "real world," outside of trials.  It is.  But it's limitations must also be understood.  Usefulness and evidential value are different standards altogether.