The part that concerns ('alarm' implies surprise) me is the confirmation that activist wikipedians have levers and knobs to play with that impact court decisions.
And if Wikipedia does, you can bet Google does too.
Seems to me that any concern here is more around case discovery. Whether judges learn about cases from Wikipedia, Lexis Nexus, university publications, etc there is always a bias in which cases get surfaced. Wikipedia being more open than most other venues can be good (more contributors/diversity of viewpoints, easier to critique) or bad (more potentially unsophisticated/ignorant contributions). I tend to bias toward more open platforms given the choice.
