Courts and law reviews are now citing Wikipedia!
More than 100 judicial rulings have relied on Wikipedia, beginning in 2004, including 13 from circuit courts of appeal, one step below the Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court thus far has never cited Wikipedia.)
Also, the "Law Blog Metrics" blog has several articles concerning citation of Wikipedia by both the courts and law review articles. It seems that the issue of citation of blogs and Wikipedia by the courts and law reviews should be a pretty hot topic right now but in the past two months the Law Blog Metrics blog has received only one significant comment -- from me (shown at the bottom of this post -- there are two other comments on the blog but they are just well-wishing comments). I think a lot of people are burying their heads in the sand in regard to this issue.
A previous post on this blog shows that Wikipedia has serious reliability and fairness problems because of bias, censorship, and the ignorance of editors. Also, Wikipedia articles are even more unstable than blogs because Wikipedia articles are subject to editing by outsiders. IMO Wikipedia articles cited by courts and law reviews should be archived by major law publishers (e.g., Westlaw and LexisNexis) in the exact forms in which the articles were cited. It may be a good idea to also archive external websites linked to by the cited Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does save all previous editions of articles but it would be hard for people to locate these previous editions. IMO blog articles cited by courts and law reviews, along with the blog articles' comment threads and maybe also associated URL links, should be similarly archived for future reference. Actually, I am tempted to archive some of the news articles that I link to on this blog but I am afraid that such archiving might be a copyright violation.
IMO the way to resolve many of the disputes over Wikipedia entries is simply to post the entries along with (1) notes that the entries are disputed and (2) links to external websites where the disputes are discussed or debated. The mere existence of these discussions and debates on external websites is sufficient to show that the entry is in fact disputed. I proposed this compromise in the case of the dispute over whether the book "Of Pandas and People" should be listed in the Wikipedia list of banned books, but predictably this sensible proposal was turned down by the insiders who tyrannize Wikipedia.
A big problem I have in fighting arbitrary Internet censorship is that many of the bloggers who would normally be on my side practice arbitrary censorship themselves (but at least their blogs are not likely to be quoted, cited, or listed in court opinions, law review articles, scholarly databases, etc.). So for the time being, I must be content to be just a voice in the wilderness (the real voice in the wilderness, not the fake voice in the wilderness who often posts his garbage here).