Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use?

The Volokh Conspiracy notes that courts have cited Wikipedia in decisions over 300 times. That's three hundred times that the user-created encyclopedia has been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.

In the decision for Rickher v. Home Depot, Inc., the Seventh Circuit uses the Wikipedia definition of "wear and tear" over the definition given by Webster's II New College Dictionary and Random House Webster's Collge Dictionary:

"Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_and_tear, last visited May 30, 2008."

I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used.