http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080902-appeals-court-smacks-down-judge-for-relying-on-wikipedia.html
Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia
By John Timmer | Published: September 02, 2008 - 08:15PM CT
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 thelaissez-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.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
