As the edd blog reports, a New Jersey Judge who allowed a party to fill an gap in evidence with information from Wikipedia has been reversed. The attorney had apparently used the source to help trace ownership of a debt in a collection case. The opinion hinged on the inherent nature of wikis, which is that anyone can edit anyone else's information without a guarantee of truth or accuracy. I have not read the opinion, but the edd blog post quotes an attorney on the case who believes the case stands for the proposition that "Wikipedia cannot be utilized for judicial notice."