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 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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.