United States: Pitfalls Of Judges, Lawyers, And Experts Citing Wikipedia

Last Updated: January 24 2017
Article by James Beck

Our weekly search for new drug/medical device cases for 1/13/17 turned up something unusual – not of particular substantive significance, but unusual. Two of the opinions included citations to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia? You mean the comprehensive online encyclopedia that is crowd-sourced, so that anybody – even us – can edit/alter the information contained on the entries (at least, most of them)? That's it. Since the provenance of the information on Wikipedia is unknown, as lawyers we've been taught never, ever to cite to it as authoritative in filed papers (we often cite to it on the blog). After all, given the high stakes of most of our litigation, an attorney citing to Wikipedia could have just added the information to which s/he is citing.

[I]f Wikipedia were regarded as an authoritative source, an unscrupulous lawyer (or client) could edit the Web site entry to frame the facts in a light favorable to the client's cause. Likewise, an opposing lawyer critical of the Wikipedia reference could edit the entry, reframing the facts and creating the appearance that the first lawyer was misrepresenting or falsifying the source’s content.

Peoples, "The Citation of Wikipedia in Judicial Opinions," 12 Yale J. L. & Tech. 1, 24 (2010) (quoting Richards, "Courting Wikipedia," Trial, at (April 2008)). Obviously, that kind of bootstrapping oneself into authority isn't allowed. If lawyers want to cite ourselves, we should at least have to write law review articles.

So we thought it would be fun to see what we could find in the way of Wikipedia references in judicial opinions involving product liability litigation or prescription medical products, and even both. This post details what we found.

First, courts (or masters) have gotten in trouble for excessive reliance on Wikipedia. In a Vaccine Act case, a special master declined to hold a hearing, and instead relied on internet sources such as Wikipedia. That produced a reversal. As to Wikipedia, the court stated:

[T]he exhibit introduced by the Special Master indicates that its information was drawn from Wikipedia.com, a website that allows virtually anyone to upload an article into what is essentially a free, online encyclopedia. A review of the Wikipedia website reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing series of disclaimers, among them, that: (i) any given Wikipedia article "may be, at any given moment, in a bad state: for example it could be in the middle of a large edit or it could have been recently vandalized;" (ii) Wikipedia articles are "also subject to remarkable oversights and omissions;" (iii) "Wikipedia articles (or series of related articles) are liable to be incomplete in ways that would be less usual in a more tightly controlled reference work;" (iv) "[a]nother problem with a lot of content on Wikipedia is that many contributors do not cite their sources, something that makes it hard for the reader to judge the credibility of what is written;" and (v) "many articles commence their lives as partisan drafts" and may be "caught up in a heavily unbalanced viewpoint."

Campbell v. Sec'y HHS, 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 781 (2006). But see Keeler v. Colvin, 2014 WL 4394467, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 4, 2014) (allowing administrative law judge to cite Wikipedia in vaccine case; "[t]his Court finds no per se prohibition on citing Wikipedia in judicial opinions").

In another vaccine case, the trial court relied on Wikipedia information supplied by a parent trying to prevent vaccination in making a "best interests of the child" determination. The appellate court shot that down, holding, "[w]e cannot fathom that a document containing content that can be altered by anyone at any time could possibly demonstrate circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." Kagen v. Kagen, 2015 WL 4254993, at *3 (Mich. App. July 14, 2015). Kagan included the following string citation to make its point: Bing Shun Li v. Holder, 400 Fed Appx 854, 857 (5th Cir., 2010) ("We agree with those courts that have found Wikipedia to be an unreliable source of information."); United States v. Lawson, 677 F.3d 629, 650 (4th Cir. 2012) ("we are not the first federal court to be troubled by Wikipedia's lack of reliability"); Johnson v. Colvin, 2014 WL 5394954, at *4 n.4 (D. Me. Oct. 21, 2014) ("Counsel are reminded that this court has not accepted Wikipedia as a reliable medical reference."); Smartphone Technologies LLC v. Research in Motion Corp., 2012 WL 489112, at *5 n.3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2012) ("The content on this website is provided by volunteers from around the world-anyone with internet access can provide or modify content. Thus, not only is the information unreliable, but it can potentially change on a day-to-day basis."). Kagan, 2015 WL 4254993, at *3 n.1.

Another administrative judge got raked over the coals for relying on Wikipedia in Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008).

The [government] did not adopt the entirety of the IJ’s reasoning for rejecting [appellant's] claim. Rather, the [government] acknowledged that it was improper for the IJ to consider information from Wikipedia in evaluating [appellant's] submission on remand, and the government does not dispute that conclusion here.

Id. at 910. See also In re Marriage of LaMoure, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 15 (Cal. App. 2011) ("We do not consider Wikipedia a sufficiently reliable source."); Sanchez v. Cegavske, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2016 WL 5936918, at *2 n.3 (D. Nev. Oct. 7, 2016) ("[t]he Court cannot rely on" Wikipedia citations); Henricks v. Pickaway Correctional Institute, 2013 WL 4804983, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2013) ("Wikipedia is not a valid legal authority; it is an online encyclopedia which can be written and edited by any user"), aff'd, 782 F.3d 744 (6th Cir. 2015); Du Nguyen v. Astrue, 2012 WL 975674, at *6 (Mag. D. Me. March 21, 2012) ("Wikipedia has not been shown to this court to be a reliable medical reference"), adopted, 2012 WL 2079874 (D. Me. June 8, 2012); Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp.2d 965, 977 n.19 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ("unfortunate that the parties were unable to provide more authoritative evidence" than Wikipedia); Kole v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1338092, *7 n.3 (D. Idaho March 31, 2010) ("[Counsel] is admonished from using Wikipedia as an authority. . . . Wikipedia is not a reliable source at this level of discourse. . . . [Counsel] should know that citations to such unreliable sources only serve to undermine his reliability"); In re Asbestos Litigation, 2012 WL 1409011, at *4 (Del. Super. April 2, 2012) (Wikipedia is of "minimal valve because it does not contain . . . editorial controls"); but see Khepera-Bey v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 2012 WL 1965444, at *7 n.23 (D. Md. May 30, 2012) (as to a 1790 statute, the "most informative source, it appears, is Wikipedia").

The most comprehensive discussion we found about the nature of Wikipedia and its reliability problems is in United States v. Lawson, 677 F.3d 629 (4th Cir. 2012), a criminal appeal reversing a conviction where jurors had accessed Wikipedia about definitions of statutory terms relevant to the offense. The Fourth Circuit discussed its reliability concerns at length:

We observe here another aspect of Wikipedia, namely, its reliability. According to the "Wikipedia:About" entry, at least in its form as of April 16, 2012, Wikipedia describes itself as "a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly editable model." Indeed, the "About Wikipedia" entry notes that:

Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism). Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity, if they choose.

Id. The "About Wikipedia" entry further notes that "[a]nyone with Web access can edit Wikipedia…. About 91,000 editors—from expert scholars to casual readers—regularly edit Wikipedia." Id.

Given the open-access nature of Wikipedia, the danger in relying on a Wikipedia entry is obvious and real. As the "About Wikipedia" material aptly observes, "[a]llowing anyone to edit Wikipedia means that it is more easily vandalized or susceptible to unchecked information." Id. Further, Wikipedia aptly recognizes that it "is written largely by amateurs." Id.

677 F.3d at 650 (Internet citations omitted).

But judges, they can pretty much do what they want in their opinions. Indeed, one case states that "the frequent citation of Wikipedia [in judicial opinions] at least suggests that many courts do not consider it to be inherently unreliable." Alfa Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank, 475 F. Supp.2d 357, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Alfa is correct insofar as, yes, judges do often cite Wikipedia. Judge Posner has done so repeatedly. Rowe v. Gibson, 798 F.3d 622, 624 (7th Cir. 2015) (facts about prescription drug); Krien v. Harsco Corp., 745 F.3d 313, 316 (7th Cir. 2014) (size of corporate defendant in product liability action); U.S. ex rel. Grenadyor v. Ukrainian Village Pharmacy, Inc., 772 F.3d 1102, 1104 (7th Cir. 2014) (size of population served by pharmacy defendant in FCA action); Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778, 785 (7th Cir. 2014) (effectiveness of glucosamine treatment); United States v. Herrera, 704 F.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2013) (nature of forensic DNA analysis); United States v. Ford, 683 F.3d 761, 768 (7th Cir. 2012) (same).

Other courts in published opinions have likewise cited Wikipedia on issues concerning medicine and/or prescription medical products. United States v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149, 171 n.2 (2d Cir. 2012) (example of unapproved drug) (dissenting opinion); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 679 F.3d 952, 953 (7th Cir. 2012) (description of hip replacement surgery); Stimmler v. Chestnut Hill Hospital, 981 A.2d 145, 159 n.16 (Pa. 2009) (characteristics of medical device); Rivas v. Overlake Hospital Medical Center, 189 P.3d 753, 755 n.2 (Wash. 2008) (medical evaluation criteria); Mullis v. State, 79 So. 3d 747, 750 (Fla. App. 2011) (description of prescription drug); Goonan v. State, 334 S.W.3d 357, 362 (Tex. App. 2011) (FDA regulatory history of OTC drug) (concurring opinion); Abila v. Funk, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2016 WL 7242731, at *6 n.22 (D.N.M. Nov. 23, 2016) (defining medical terminology); Scott v. Clarke, 61 F. Supp.3d 569, 580 n.7 (W.D. Va. 2014) (nature of prescription drug); United States v. Crisman, 39 F. Supp.3d 1189, 1234 n.20 (D.N.M. 2014) (nature of meta-analysis); Telerent Leasing Corp. v. Progressive Medical Imaging PLC, 918 F. Supp.2d 666, 669, (E.D. Mich. 2013) (description of medical imaging technology); United States ex rel. Spay v. CVS Caremark Corp., 913 F. Supp.2d 125, 165 & n.25 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (drug codes used in Medicare reimbursement); United States v. Vigil, 832 F. Supp.2d 1304, 1309 n.9, (D.N.M. 2011) (identification and modes of administration of prescription drug); Winebarger v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 571 F. Supp.2d 719, 724 n.7 (W.D. Va. 2008) (nature of certain prescription drugs); Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 459 F. Supp.2d 925, 928 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (nature of recalled drug).

That is not to say that we're necessarily upset by this. In United States v. Chapman, 59 F. Supp.3d 1194 (D.N.M. 2014), aff'd, 839 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2016), the court looked to the Wikipedia definition of a medical condition commonly suffered by plaintiffs in cases we defend:

[T]he affected person exaggerates or creates symptoms of illnesses in themselves to gain examination, treatment, attention, sympathy, and/or comfort from medical personnel. In some extreme cases, people suffering from Munchausen's syndrome are highly knowledgeable about the practice of medicine and are able to produce symptoms that result in lengthy and costly medical analysis, prolonged hospital stay and unnecessary operations. The role of "patient" is a familiar and comforting one, and it fills a psychological need in people with this syndrome.

Id. at 1170 n.6 (quoting Wikipedia discussion of Munchausen Syndrome). Accord Feingerts v. American Casualty Co., 34 So.3d 358, 364 n.4 (La. App. 2010) (relying on Wikipedia definition of "somatoform disorder").

There are also cases holding that Wikipedia is hearsay and otherwise not admissible evidence. Kace v. Liang, 36 N.E.3d 1215, 1226 (Mass. 2015) (the "Internet encyclopedia 'Wikipedia' is not [a] learned treatise"); People v. Stamps, 207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 828, 834 (Cal. App. 2016) ("any evidence procured off the Internet is adequate for almost nothing, even under the most liberal interpretation of the hearsay exception rule"; mentioning Wikipedia as example); Thompson v. Walgreen Co., 2014 WL 1691894, at *1 n.3 (Cal. App. April 30, 2014) (Wikipedia description of drug and its effects cannot be judicially noticed); Cowan v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2017 WL 59080, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2017) (Wikipedia cannot be judicially noticed); Gravelle v. Kiander, 2016 WL 2930433, at *5 n.10 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2016) (same); Foppa v. Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., 2015 WL 11256937, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 11, 2015) (Wikipedia article is not evidence supporting jurisdiction); Spears v. United States, 2014 WL 3513203, at *4 (W.D. Tex. July 14, 2014) (striking unauthenticated Wikipedia description of drug); Johnson v. Total Renal Care, Inc., 2012 WL 896155, at *6 (W.D. Tenn. March 15, 2012) (Wikipedia discussion of nature of drug is hearsay); Altman v. HO Sports Co., 821 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1181 n.2 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (Wikipedia cannot be judicially noticed).

Something else we found were cases involving expert witnesses who cite to Wikipedia in their reports – so theoretically (and perhaps, actually) they could be citing to material that they just inputted into Wikipedia, or conversely, the material they cite to could vanish tomorrow as a result of someone else's edits. In medical device product liability litigation, the court in Jones v. Synthes USA Sales, LLC, 2010 WL 3311840 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2010), held that an expert opinion based on "an article found on Wikipedia" "lack[ed] reliable scientific grounds." Id. at *9. "[T]he article had no author and ha[d] not been peer reviewed." Id. "Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia which could be written and edited by any internet user," therefore "such an article is not grounded in any legitimacy or reliability with regards to scientific authority." Id. See McKerrow v. Buyers Products Co., 2016 WL 1110303, at *3 (D. Md. March 22, 2016) (a defect opinion lacked credible methodology where, inter alia, the plaintiff's expert used Wikipedia definitions as "industry standards"); Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 2015 WL 4232600, at *13 n.17 (W.D. Pa. July 13, 2015) (excluded expert "relies upon an unreliable source: Wikipedia"), vacated on other grounds, ___ F.3d ___, 2017 WL 83385 (3d Cir. Jan. 10, 2017).

Finally, we found one case holding that a Wikipedia entry qualified as a "public disclosure" that could bar a False Claims Act action. United States ex rel. Brown v. Walt Disney World Co., 2008 WL 2561975, at *4 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2008), aff'd, 361 F. Appx. 66 (11th Cir. 2010).

So there you go. The Wiktionary definition of "overkill" is "[a]n unnecessary excess of whatever is needed to achieve a goal."

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

James Beck
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions