Appeals Court Tells Homeland Security That Wikipedia Alone Isn't Sufficient Evidence For Refusing Asylum To A Refugee
from the DHS-didn't-realize-this? dept
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?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: asylum, immigration, sources, wikipedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woadan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woadan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess the "This article does not cite any references or sources." note on top of the wikipedia page on "Laissez-passer" (last edited three months ago) didn't inspire confidence on it's validity.
The asylum-seeker in question had showed up with this document from Ethiopia.
One would think that the INS, I mean, DHS could get some of their lawyers do a little bit more research on Laissez-passer and come up with some guidelines on handling this type of document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still think its funny . . .
"Did DHS really not have the ability to check the legitimacy of the woman's documents without resorting to Wikipedia? "
big government republicans). They are chosen on two fundamental criteria; firstly political affiliation (which is of course a violation of the constitution in most cases, but an emperor isn’t answerable to a document anyway) and secondly, their complete and utterly reliable incompetence (remember, government doesn’t work).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]