Nice little opinion. The "disturbing disclaimers" language is actually a quote from a 2006 case before the Federal Court of Claims (the court you use to due the Federal government for damages). Here's the actual opinion.
Seems pretty clear the defendant's goose is still cooked; they're just getting a remand so they can say, "oh, no, we would have felt the same without Wikipedia." So the remand is probably symbolic, but it's a clear signal that judges--even immigration judges--cannot cite Wikipedia as persuasive authority in the Eighth Circuit (AR, MO, NE, IA, MN, SD, ND).
The rate of Wikipedia citations in opinions appears to have slowed since articles like this
, and the high profile story in the New York times early 2007
. I think it was a product of clerk laziness and judicial unawareness. Now that judges realize anyone--even the parties--can edit it, they're loath to touch it. Good for them.
EDIT: I didn't see SirFozzie's thread. Please merge there.This post has been edited by One: Wed 3rd September 2008, 5:36am