fremontneb.com — School administrators take a dim view of these and other lines about the school:"It's (sic) tuition is ridiculously high, too. Not to mention you get an awful education there. They put more emphasis on sports than they do education. No wonder almost all kids there are complete idiots."
Jul 23, 2006 View in Crawl 4
fidodoJul 23, 2006
Next we will be suing message boards?Wikipedia is very good at keeping articles subjective. Whenever I see a biased article on Wikipedia there is always a warning sign at the top in big red letters warning me about it. If the article was biased, someone would have said something and it would be fixed or there would be a warning about it. If they want accurate information on Wikipedia, why not help improve the article? Hmm??
noahvailJul 24, 2006
"Anyone who is providing information that is factual - or at least has well-documented references - shouldn't need to keep their identity secret."Bollux! People get fired/harrassed for all kinds of reasons, mostly for telling the truth.
turbodiggJul 24, 2006
Say goodbye to FREE SPEECH.
brimstonehowlerJul 24, 2006
Yeah, Skutt won the Class B (their division) state title in almost everything.It was insane. I've never seen dominance like that before.My school won the Class A title in just about nothing. :(
gerrydamanJul 24, 2006
This is stupid. So, is this high school going to sue Blogs for their opinions toward the church too??? Give me a break. This would never happen in Korea.Ever wonder what it would be like to teach in Korea? Check out my blog:<a class="user" href="http://thedailykimchi.blogspot.com">http://thedailykimchi.blogspot.com</a>
mouskyJul 24, 2006
Because Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not an open forum.
tuxideJul 24, 2006
The link is no longer valid. Try <a class="user" href="http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jul/23/high_school_sues_over_wikipedia_posting/?state_regional">http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jul/23/high_school_sues_over_wikipedia_posting/?state_regional</a>
kfraserJul 26, 2006
The case isn't against Wikipedia.
kfraserJul 26, 2006
If the Wikipedia writer had sent a letter to the school, or to the editor of a newspaper, or presented their opinions AS THEIR OPINIONS, they would be expressing their opinions. This case is about intentions. The kid wanted people to believe what he wrote by using Wikipedia's reputation against the school. It doesn't matter what he wrote in Wikipedia, and it doesn't matter that the school didn't edit it. What matters is the kid was trying to damage the reputation of an entire school by supposing and playing upon on the trust of Wikipedia readers. If the kid had spray-painted on the church building, that's one thing. Taking steps to orchestrate a smear campaign, no matter how transparently, childishly idiotic the kid was in executing his clever plan is an organized offense. To all those who say "don't sue, edit" I ask this: If someone started a Wikipedia page for the purpose of trying to put your ability to earn a living at risk -- your personal ability to pay your bills and feed your family over the long term... How many milliseconds would it take before you were telling a lawyer to sue that person past the far end of the 22nd century? You're not going to convince me you'd say "Oh, well if it's just an illiterate kid and all I have to do is continuously edit a Wikipedia page forever to reduce the potential harm to my reputation, then in that case suing would waste money, or taxpayer resources or something. Besides I'm a [fill in name of role within school] and so I've got better things to do than keep some idiot's imbecilic nonsense from damaging its reputation." Israel is refusing to let Hezbollah get away with the "relatively small" offense of kidnapping a small number of its soldiers. NOTE direct relevancy of last statement to this thread--the exact same principle applies:Let an attacker attack, and you don't know when they will stop, or IF they will stop. In fact, you MUST VIGOROUSLY take all neccessary steps to stop an attacker if you care in the least about the people you are responsible for protecting.
kfraserJul 26, 2006
The case is not against Wikipedia. You would understand that if you had read before writing.
bullet19465Aug 10, 2006
This is quite ironic, I'm speaking with my friend who's dad is down at his lawyer's office talking about this case. My friend changed information about Skutt because he felt he was the wrong person being targeted in a situation. He was assaulted at the school and was almost suspended for self-defense. He changed the information about Skutt in March saying, "The officials at Skutt always target the wrong person, if you try to defend yourself you are more likely to get suspended than the perpetrator."