Wikipedia

The online encyclopedia, with its open-editing design and free-for-all philosophy, speaks to the anarchist in all of us. Who says that some “editor” should approve information that appears online? If it’s incorrect, someone will be along shortly to correct it. At least one judge in New Jersey agreed and allowed attorneys for a debt purchaser to submit a page from Wikipedia into evidence.

But an appellate panel in the state overturned that verdict earlier this month noting that Wikipedia is a “malleable source of information” and that it is “inherently unreliable” (“Debt Buyer Loses Collection Case Appeal Over Wikipedia Page,” April 24).

In attempting to prove chain of title for a purchased credit card account, attorneys for a debt buyer offered a Wikipedia entry as proof of a bank merger. The initial ruling allowed the evidence, but the verdict was overturned on appeal. Most troubling, the consumer in the case was not denying the debt, he was simply arguing that the debt buyer could not prove chain of title.

It’s another example of the precarious nature of ARM suits in the court systems. Did the debt buyers’ attorneys exhibit a certain sloppiness in entering a Wikipedia page as evidence? Probably. But the vacillating opinions from judge to judge in accepting the evidence is maddening to those pursuing debtors in court.