by Mike Masnick
Wed, Sep 3rd 2008 2:34pm
While I tend to think that Wikipedia is a good thing overall, that's because I know it's not a source that should be relied on by itself for important decisions -- such as whether or not to grant political asylum to an individual. It can be useful as a starting point, if that information can be corroborated elsewhere. Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security felt otherwise in using Wikipedia to deny a request for asylum for a woman. An Appeals Court has now overturned that decision, noting the problems with using Wikipedia as a sole source of info, but the whole scenario should make you wonder. Did DHS really not have the ability to check the legitimacy of the woman's documents without resorting to Wikipedia? What sort of resources are provided to immigration officials that they're making judgments based on a Wikipedia page?
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Court Dismisses Wikimedia's Lawsuit Over NSA Surveillance
- Telco Giant Vodafone Looked At Journalist's Phone Records To See Who Was Leaking Info To Her
- DOJ, Which Once Claimed James Risen's Testimony Was Necessary, Now Tries To Block Other Side From Using Him
- UK Party Leader Attacks Satirical Mobile Game Made By Teenagers Interested In Politics
- Eric Holder Blinks: Won't Force Reporter James Risen To Reveal Source (Or Send Him To Jail)