What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.206 Comments
- psycobrat, on 10/12/2007, -12/+110and why can we not have critical reviews? do not like you review, make changes to improve it, do not sue.
- brushen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+95Actually, the headline is accurate. "Over Wikipedia posting" does not necessarily mean Wikipedia was sued.
- TheJeffer, on 10/12/2007, -29/+100Read the article people. The headline is inaccurate. The school is trying to sue whoever posted the comments, not Wikipedia. Most likely, they're trying to sue for defamation. And most likely, it'll get laughed out of the courtroom, because opinions don't qualify (and the statements listed in the article would be considered merely opinions by most people).
- Micler, on 10/12/2007, -7/+75The Catholic Church isn't creationist, they say they have no opinion on evolution and something like 'Even scientifically unpredictable/random events can be controlled by God."
- joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -2/+65someone should tell the school that they can edit these entries as well.
i think this lawsuit reflects on the poor overpriced education they probably offer. - Cerberus047, on 10/12/2007, -4/+66Because suing makes you look sooo much better.....
- bitt3n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+63@sithmat
your opinion offends me sir. you will be hearing from my lawyer forthwith. - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -11/+69To school administrators: STFU if you don't know what Wikipedia is.
- TheWriteGuy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+61Wikipedia, YouTube, MySpace... I've become very weary of how the old media keeps villainizing these three sites.
- psyon, on 10/12/2007, -20/+77But how do you know God didn't make life evolve? Don't get me wrong, I am agnostic, but you never know. The bible only says he created us in his own image. Maybe God is an amoeba.
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+47(Censored)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+46My grandpa had a saying about this:
"If you toss a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is usually the one that got hit" - steve693, on 10/12/2007, -1/+44"Seigenthaler said it took months to get statements about him removed from a Wikipedia page"
It took him months to find the edit button? - maiku00, on 10/17/2007, -49/+89I'm glad I got an education where I learned how life evolved, and not how god waved his hand and said "zap".
- mipadi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+40Well, it is a Catholic high school…
- sithmat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+39What's next, Digg users suing other Digg users for defamation? I can't believe that ridiculous subpoena was granted. There were no threats of death or violence or criminal activity made. Just some teenage angst relieved in the form of a Wikipedia post. Some people really need to grow up.
- dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36@NoahVail
This has nothing to do with religion. - Antz0rz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Quick! CENSOR EVERYTHING.
- mipadi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26At least they're suing the people who wrote then inflammatory lines, and not the Wikimedia Foundation itself.
Although I wonder if this suit will actually go anywhere… - ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36Wikipedia is not a review site.
It is an online encyclopedia which is supposed to provide factual, unbaised content. - psyon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26Micier I don't know why anyone dugg you down. I think your comment applied to the parent. I was Catholic before I became agnostic, and much of my family is Catholic still. The last stance I heard from the church was only that "God and Evolution are not mutually exclusive"
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19That's what I was thinking. The fact that they sued, rather than fixing the articles, suggests that they're just as dumb as the Wikipedia entries claimed. In the US, truth is a defense in a slander suit.
- Micler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17They're suing the poster, not Wikipedia
- SoxFanNH, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20People can write whatever they want. If the school has a problem with it maybe they should figure out why people feel this way. Sounds like the school has its own issues to contend with...
- LocalH, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21I dugg this entire thread down because it's pointless bitching over religion in a story that has nothing to do with religion.
- itanium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14It's not just these sites. If "[wikipedia, YouTube and MySpace] are just the vehicle" then these people will abandon that vehicle and get another one. I predict that this sort of thing won't end, like P2P sharing. Besides, If I were to pay that high tuition, get crappy education, and have airheads for classmates, I would want to switch to some other school. These administrators deserve to take it up the ass.
- Dempf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"Seigenthaler said it took months to get statements about him removed from a Wikipedia page."
Yeah..they're pretty much noobs at life. - bejitunksu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5951/magicxp6.jpg
lol - RaggTopp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Hmmm good idea... let's respond to negative criticism with a lawsuit.....that's SURE to make people think we're good people.
- dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13This type of case has happened before from schools both private (religious and non-religius private) and public. The EFF just fought one off from a public school official. See here:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_07.php#004827
You are entitled to your opinion about religion but there is nothing about this case that says religion is the reason they started it. Stop trying to spread lies. - psyon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Right, so he made the amoebas that became birds first. Then made the amoebas that became land animals. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp.
(Please keep in mind I am being very sarcastic) - jtjdt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11If the school didn't like their review, they should've just changed it! Not Sue!
- postal21, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11If you go to that schools website you can see what they mean about the sports... its like all they talk about... "OMG WE WON STATE AGAIN ROFLS"
- navster15, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Libel is not covered by our free speech rights. The school has legal grounds to sue, albeit very shaky ones...
- daggett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I haven't gotten by the first post and I have to comment...
It can't be just me (although 60+ people gave [it] a 'thumbs-up'), but I can't understand some people's posts (like this one). I realize that sometimes it's a matter of someone not speaking English natively, but sometimes it resembles something written by Hunter S. Thompson (no offense to "psycobrat" meant at all).
I also realize that some of [my] posts might be disjointed and/or rambling (it's some intense ADD I'm dealing with), but I try to re-read the post to make sure it says what I want to convey before submitting it.
"and why can we not have critical reviews?" - Are you talking about having opinions in Wikipedia? If so, that's a bad idea for many reasons. Everything in Wikipedia should be verifiable fact, otherwise it's nothing better than a gossip sheet.
"do not like you review, make changes to improve it, do not sue."
- This (sentence?) makes absolutely no sense [to me] at all, except for the last part, "do not sue". THAT part I understand and agree with!
Take out the 'opinions' and leave the 'facts' about the school. [It's] meant to be self-correcting, so let it be 'corrected' and be done with it. Otherwise Wikipedia would just become bloated with people's opinions about anyone and anything listed there.
And I don't think it needs to be adjudicated. No permanent or significant damage was done to the school's reputation.
The school needs to show some maturity, and the lawyers need to show restraint.
I'm thinking that "psycobrat" and I [might] feel the same way about this, but I can't tell!
Bottom line, posts like these make it really hard to know whether or not to give them a 'thumbs-up' or a 'thumbs-down'... I think that I'm not the only one affected by this, so those who comment, PLEASE try to make your point(s) as coherent as possible (and I'll try too!). Thanks all. - rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11To be sure, the quote in the summary isn't exactly NPOV.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Um, no. They think it's an encyclopedia. And Encyclopedias are expected to have accurate information.
- psyon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14xman00. You are right, and I was playing devils advocate in my original post. Like I said, I am agnostic. I think it takes just as much, if not stronger convictions to firmly believe that there is no God. I am not talking about people who just don't care, but those who are firm athiests. I think my biggest problem is peoples argument for why there is a god. "You can't just have something from nothing, God must have created the Universe" but that really doesn't explain how God came from nothing, because of course, "He just always was", and yet the universe couldn't have just always been. Wierd how that is.
With reguard to the parent, I am glad I had an education where I did not have either view forced down my throat, and was able to judge the evidence for both sides myself. - heavyd14, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15If God is an all powerful and all knowing being, isn't it more beautiful and rewarding to think that God set in motion a complex series of events that led to our creation instead of one day making it so. Isn't the idea of magicing up the universe kind of short-selling God?
- Bananas21ca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I censor your censor!
- wmoisis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Seigenthaler said it took months to get statements about him removed from a Wikipedia page"
Yeah, probably because it took months for them to learn how to hit the 'edit' button. - Imagine3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Defamation wouldn't work there because the school would already be in the public forum so it wouldn't hold up.
- danlovejoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6They have to file a suit in order to get a subpoena to find out who they are.
- Dashist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Why must you mock a lawsuit before you know more details? It is entirely possible that this suit is on legitimate grounds, IE, a punished or ostracized student of that school slandering it to lash out. In fact, the page on Wikipedia seems to be restricted from viewing by members.
Does anyone have the former article? It seems a bit rash to take a side like this due to former biases ("Wikipedia, YouTube, MySpace... I've become very weary of how the old media keeps villainizing these three sites.", "To school administrators: STFU if you don't know what Wikipedia is.", "and why can we not have critical reviews? do not like you review, make changes to improve it, do not sue.") Maybe they wanted the material blocked by administrators, so that disputes would not arise.
But "I'm glad I got an education where I learned how life evolved, and not how god waved his hand and said "zap"." Has nothing to do with the article. This isn't about creationism and Catholicism.
I'd like to see the full story before I condemn the school. Don't you agree? - psyon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Evolution of species to adapt is fact. You can see changes in animals, just in periods that are in recorded history. Macro evoltution, the process of a single cell becoming a very complex lifeform, is what is debated. Please explain to me how macro evolution is any more of a fairytale than God? The only evidence that God exists, is because it is the only way for some people to explain our existance. On the other hand, there is genetic and fossile evidence that supports the theory of macro evolution. God fearing people should not need proof though. Faith is all you should have, and need.
- danlovejoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Ask Adam Curry if it's OK to correct errors about yourself (or your employer) in a Wikipedia entry. They will CRUCIFY you.
To be frank, people who have an axe to grind and a lot of time on their hands can keep editing, and editing, and editing a low traffic page until the defenders (who have lives and things to do) get tired and give up.
Siccing a lawyer on the libelers is the only way to hold them accountable. With a subpoena, you can get their information from the ISP and hold them accountable for their libel. - psyon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Sure it does. Catholics are viewed as money grubbers. Its like saying "Jew sues blah blah." People go "Well Duh", but it helps to make them mad about it.
- mipadi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Note that the Wikimedia Foundation is not being sued; the school is trying to figure out the identities of the people who posted the comments, in order to sue THEM.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Tweek: Libel *is opinion*. If it is fact, it is not libel or defamation.
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I can see from your post why parents would be so eager to enroll their tots in Catholic school. Are you going to learn about constructing coherent sentences next year?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 198 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 