How can a resource that is written by anyone who has an inkling to say something be reliable?  The rub on Wikipedia has always been that you can't trust it, because unlike Britannica, it is not written by a staff of paid Phd's, but rather volunteer online authors.  That is not lost on the alert staff at my daughter's grade school.  They have generally prohibited students from using Wikipedia in connection with researching their papers.  However, it appears as though word has not reached our state and federal courts, which, according to the New York Times, have cited Wikipedia as authority in over 100 reported cases, including at least 13 from federal courts of appeal.

In fairness, it appears as though courts are using some discretion.  For example, reliance on Wikipedia was cited as a basis for reversing a lower court which had relied on the collaborative online encyclopedia for information relating to the cause of seizures in a girl that had received a vaccine.  However, the resource was ultimately relied upon by another court that had to determine the meaning of "booty music" as played during a wet T-shirt contest to resolve a case.  Evidently Britannica's "booty music" Phd had yet to publish his thesis.