Spotted by Mathias on the comcom list:

http://customslaw.blogspot.com/2010/06/cit-dumps-on-wikipedia.html

Precis: litigant brings up Wikipedia description, court rejects it because anyone can edit Wikipedia. So pretty much in accordance with our general advice ;-)

That said, the litigant asserted that a long-standing Wikipedia definition could itself be taken as evidence of "common usage" ... that's interestingly plausible. I wonder if someone will get a court to accept that when it's relevant.

- d.