wikipediaclassaction.org — Recent news articles have exposed a growing problem with untrue and libelous information being posted on the highly popular Wikipedia site. Now complaints are being gathered from the Internet community for a class action lawsuit, in an apparent attempt to get the site shut down.
Dec 12, 2005 View in Crawl 4
macwormDec 12, 2005
If they find a problem then edit it!
mcloveDec 12, 2005
Wikipedia is open-source, it's impossible to shut it down; in the highly unlikely event that someone managed to sue the Wikimedia Foundation out of existence in the US, someone else in a less litigious country could take the latest SQL dump of Wikipedia's database and set up their own version. Of course you'd still have to rebuild the system of moderators, contributors, etc, and there might be a few competing efforts at first, but eventually there'd be another Wikipedia with the same content beyond the reach of any money-grubbing American lawyers.
pegasus_strainDec 13, 2005
Don't these people get it? If you think the info's bad -- edit it yourself and correct it! No, let's get a class action law suit going and just screw everything up.
dhughesDec 13, 2005
I wonder how many new users have joined digg.com today to post their opinions :P
orbitalpunkDec 13, 2005
Hey , i got the same reply. f**kers.Hello,You do not understand the issues here, so perhaps, it is best for you tosit this one out on the side.Why must I become involved in the Wikipedia website? If there isoffending or inaccurate content, about me, my business or family, whyshould I be required to become a user and edit the content?I am interested to learn why you thought I would be interested in yourcomments.Regards,
metamongrelDec 13, 2005
sounds like ambulance chasers to me.and even if it is serious, its really hard to get a libel judgment in the united states. the burden of proof is on the victim to prove that he is the subject of the allegedly libelous statements, that they were defamatory and false and that they actually damaged him in some way. i think that's a hard sell against a wiki (not even a corporate entity or publication) that explicitly states in its faq that "As anyone can edit any article, it is of course possible for biased, out of date, or incorrect information to be posted."nice try to the former paralegal who commented above. you arguably have a good moral case, but doesn't sound like a good legal one.
reddog_x2000Dec 13, 2005
RE: metamongrel (0)I was focusing on the moral argument. I can't really comment on specific legal stuff without seeing A LOT more information & doing a lot of research. My statement on freedom of speech was just a blurb to correct those who think that Freedom of Speech protects them from from slander/libel lawsuits. It does not. I'm going to speak in generalities here. This isn't NECESSARILY a bulls**t case (legally speaking) I'm not saying that the plaintiffs should win. Only that this isn't NECESSARILY a bulls**t case...."the burden of proof is on the victim to prove that he is the subject of the allegedly libelous statements, that they were defamatory and false and that they actually damaged him in some way."With ya so far. The first two may be fairly easy to prove. But, It might be hard to prove that tangible damage was done. It is, however, possible. "i think that's a hard sell against a wiki" Not necessarily. In theory, Format & ownership of the media shouldn't matter. But, a good lawyer might be able to convince a jury that internet postings are a "special case". Might fly, might not. ...:that explicitly states in its faq that "As anyone can edit any article, it is of course possible for biased, out of date, or incorrect information to be posted." All that means is that the publisher doesn't warrant the information to the user. That means that the user is entering into an agreement that (s)he won't sue the publisher for ordinary mistakes. The disclaimer means nothing to An innocent 3rd party who's libeled by the site. He has not entered into a "hold harmless" agreement with the publisher. So, if (s)he is libeled there's nothing to prevent a lawsuit.
metamongrelDec 13, 2005
reddog_X2000 despite my diminishing faith in the american legal system, i just think getting a libel judgment against wikipedia would be very far from being clear-cut case. it's arguable that wikipedia is even a publication in the traditional sense--more like a palimpsest (i.e. nothing is even in print)--which would make it difficult to hold them responsible and it would further complicate the already-onerous task of trying to prove "actual malice" by making statements with a "knowledge of falsity" or "reckless disregard" for the accuracy of information about which there has been raised "a serious doubt." Westmoreland vs. CBS, et al. and Sharon vs. Time are instructive. although there was significant evidence of shoddy journalism, careless editing, etc. in both cases, making the case for "actual malice" proved impossible. even for Ariel Sharon, against whose ignominious achievements, admittedly, most "actual malice" pales. but then again, you could be right. the supreme court increasingly acts without regard for legal precident or even legality (Bush vs. Gore), so anything is possible.
Closed AccountDec 13, 2005
This will be an eternal conflict of peoples beliefs, were going back to the middle age.This how the world became flat.
Closed AccountDec 14, 2005
Do you use Wikipedia?(<a class="user" href="http://quimble.com/poll/view_poll/213)">http://quimble.com/poll/view_poll/213)</a>
ixnaumDec 15, 2005
why do you think this is a hoax? what makes you think that?
quizzerMar 15, 2006
What an interesting response from someone who has just allowed two people who run rival organizations to mine to get away with setting up a page about my company on Wikipedia. What a joke to allow business rivals to been given carte blanche to write whatever they want and then attempt to piggyback their own mediocre sites off the back of it without giving us a right to reply.Wikipedia haven't replied to any of my emails and nor have you, but the perpetrator of this has been responded to. Nice to see balanced mediation.Shame on you.