My wikipedia page says that I don't owe you any money, so take that!

One big issue that arises in debt collection cases is the question of whether the collector has the right to collect the debt at all; if challenged, debt collectors have to prove that they were hired by the creditor, or assigned the debt.

Given the fast-paced nature of the commercial world, and given the number of assignments that may be made of a certain debt, that proof may be tough to come by, leading some creditors to try unique approaches to showing they have the right to sue.

Like citing Wikipedia.

In a New Jersey case, Palisades Collection LLC v. Graubard (decided April 17, 2009), Palisades Collection sued Graubard on a credit card debt. Palisades, challenged on its right to collect, said that it got the debt this way: It claimed that the debt was originated by Chevy Chase Bank, which was then, it said, purchased by First U.S.A., a division of Bank One Corporation, which in turn, Palisades said, had been purchased by J.P. Morgan. J.P. Morgan then purportedly sold the debt to Palisades.

The proof of all this was not an assignment or letter or contract. Instead, Palisades provided print copies of electronic documents: a printed article from the New York Times and a printed Wikipedia entry. The trial court accepted those as sufficient proof of the various purchases, taking "judicial notice" of those facts, and decided that Palisades had shown how it came by the account sufficient to win.

The New Jersey Appellate Division found otherwise. It held that Wikipedia (which has been cited over 400 times, according to the Yale Journal of Law & Technology)(despite the fact that it's frequently wrong) wasn't subject to "judicial notice" because anyone can change Wikipedia. The appellate courts based that latter determination in part on Wikipedia's own claims about how it is created -- and because anyone can change it, the Court noted, Wikipedia is not a source "whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned."

Since "judicial notice" can only be taken of facts that cannot be reasonably questioned, Wikipedia's accessibility took it out of the domain of things judges can just know, and Palisades lost.

The lesson here? Ask the debt collector to prove his or her right to sue -- and never trust Wikipedia.

Courtesy: XKCD.