It turns out that Wikipedia's article affects judicial judgment, and there are also examples in which the entire phrase in Wikipedia is included

Wikipedia has millions of articles, and many people use Wikipedia for research. However, Wikipedia has many unreliable articles, and fictitious historical articles and articles written in nonsense languages are sometimes published. For this reason, there are many negative opinions about citing Wikipedia articles in academic and public documents. A shocking research result was reported that it has an impact.

How Wikipedia influences judicial behavior | MIT CSAIL
https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/how-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior

Study finds Wikipedia influences judicial behavior | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology
https://news.mit.edu/2022/study-finds-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior-0727

Wikipedia is characterized by the fact that anyone can create new articles, and many of the articles are based on old information or written with reference to unreliable sources. For this reason, in 2007, Mildbury University in the United States banned citations from Wikipedia on the grounds that ``many students referred to Wikipedia and wrote incorrect information in their reports''. There are many negative opinions about citing Wikipedia information in public documents.

A research team led by Neil Thompson , who studies computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has published more than 150 Irish Supreme Court precedents to investigate the impact of Wikipedia on judicial decisions, half of which were randomly selected. Publish the article as a Wikipedia article. After that, the results of the trial conducted after the article was published were collected, and ``Is there a ``difference in the frequency of citation by the judge'' in the case law between the article published on Wikipedia and the article that was not published?'' We analyzed whether the linguistic features of the articles published on Wikipedia are reflected in the discussions up to this point.

As a result of the analysis, it became clear that ``judicial precedents that published articles on Wikipedia'' were more frequently cited by judges than ``judicial precedents that did not publish articles on Wikipedia''. In addition, many citations of precedents were confirmed in lower courts, and few were confirmed in higher courts. Based on this result, the research team speculates that ``for judges and clerks who have a lot of work, the convenience of Wikipedia is seen as a great attraction, which may lead to the use of Wikipedia.''

In addition to the above results, the research team also found that the ``discussion leading up to the judgment'' contains text that matches the linguistic features contained in the article published on Wikipedia. The research team concludes from these results that 'Wikipedia articles influence judges' decisions.' In addition, the research team questioned the reliability of Wikipedia, saying, ``Since Wikipedia can be edited anonymously by anyone, information may be manipulated by malicious editors.'' He argues that it is necessary to build an organization that guarantees the reliability of information.