Wikipedia Entries Still Aren't Admissible Evidence
An article in the North Jersey Crime Examiner reports that an appellate court in New Jersey reversed the judgment in a collection case because the lower court mistakenly admitted a Wikipedia entry into evidence during a bench trial. The case is a good example of what not to do at trial.
The plaintiff collections agency allegedly acquired the defendant debtor's delinquent credit card account as part of a portfolio of delinquent accounts originating from Bank One Corporation. It sued the defendant alleging $30,000 in unpaid credit card debt. See Palisades Collection, L.L.C. v. Graubard, 2009 WL 1025176 (N.J.Super.A.D. Apr. 17, 2009).
At the beginning of the trial, the plaintiff, invoking the doctrine of judicial notice, offered a Wikipedia entry into evidence "to establish that Bank One Corporation was purchased by J.P. Morgan & Company in 2004," which the trial court accepted. At the conclusion of the trial, the court entered a judgment against the defendant for approximately $18,000.
On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court should not have admitted the Wikipedia entry into evidence. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden with regard to standing because it lacked sufficient evidence to prove ownership of the debt. The appellate court agreed.
The court reasons,
[t]he trial court's acceptance of Wikipedia was...contrary to the principle that judicial notice must be based upon "sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned."
The court further explains,
it is entirely possible for a party in litigation to alter a Wikipedia article, print the article, and thereafter offer it in court in support of any given position. Such a malleable source of information is inherently unreliable, and clearly not one "whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned."
As a final note, the court's reasoning here is also consistent with a case decided late last year in Texas. In Flores v. Texas, the court noted that Wikipedia's openness--its greatest strength--is also its greatest weakness. Again, since anyone can edit the material on Wikipedia, the court declined to rely on its accuracy. See Flores v. Texas, No. 14-06-00813-CR., 2008 WL 4683960 (Tex. App. Oct. 23, 2008).
