What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up-Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
250 Comments
- zqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Bet the traditional print encyclopedia publishers are behind this, they have been worried about Wikipedia ever since it got started.
- rock808, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13they post an email address and phone number. Perhaps we should pass on our opinions as well.. and make sure they are aware our wishes for their failure in this.
- skimitar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8OK. The contact address on the site address apparently belongs to an answering service that caters to off shore clients. Co-incidentally, it is also used by JustVolunteers, owned by QuakeAid (http://volunteers.baou.com/index.php?act=contact) - this shared address is interesting because of the following uncomplimentary Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OfficialWire). I wonder if this is co-incidence and both use the same answering service or whether it is payback by QuakeAid?
- lightdarknes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It's the internet, better shut down any site with false info on it!
- rock808, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6WOW! Very dangerous if they get their way!
- loveandrockets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They mention this guy Siegenthaler, who worked 4 MONTHS to get the rumor that he was involved in JFK's assassination off the website! Didn't he know about the Edit feature?
Seriously, just edit it and leave a comment. "I didn't kill JFK." - Dynamoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Nice use of copyrighted image on that site.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Literally, just ban computers, quill sales have been down 700% consecutively for the last 40 years.. I really feel sorry for the people who are losing so much money because they fail to innovate as the market moves.. who wants books these days? Obviously it is convenient but with wifi and laptops, why the hell should we not?
Can you say RIAA? - paintist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wtf... the people are suiing ... the people.
- CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This makes me livid. Wikipedia is one of two good things on the internet. The other is porn.
- TheDecn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Libel Law in the US:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm
"And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.
The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media." - CaptSnuffy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10QUICK GUYS! I FOUND ANOTHER FALSE INFO SITE!
http://www.foxnews.com/
TO THE COURT! AWAY! - Ryland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3IANAL, but I don't think these guys have a leg to stand on. Wikipedia specifically states that they don't vouch for the validity of any information on the site, and it seems like I remember several cases that hold that the proprietors of a website can't be held responsible for content contributed by users.
- sound, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3From the Wikipedia home page
"The Free Encyclopedia"
Virtually all of the definitions for "Encyclopedia" I can find include the descriptions 'authoritative' or 'reference' (as in the Encyclopedia is a reference). In order for a document to be authoritative it must be factually true. The basic design of Wikipedia does not provide any real 'fact checking' of information posted. There is a base assumption that the Wikipedia community will police itself and remove any false information. Unfortunately, there are many areas where the masses believe something to be true, when in fact it isn't. Since Wikipedia counts on the 'masses' judgment in terms of truth, Wikipedia cannot be trusted. At the very *least* they should be prohibited for using the term "Encyclopedia" to refer to the site.
I *do* believe there is a place for community knowledge, but claiming that it is authoritative is deceptive at best (even if there is a disclaimer somewhere, it isn't on the home page, that the content may not be correct and that the operators of the site make *no* guarantees as to the veracity of the information). - themightychris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3" They believe themselves to be above the law."
No, they believe themselves to be providing an open medium for organizing information.
I hate stubborn old people. zqwerty is probably right
I hope this gets thrown out before wikimedia has to waste donated money defending free speech - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm a libertarian and a free speech advocate. I also like Wikkipedia. But, I disagree with those of you who claim that this is a stupid lawsuit.
Your right to free speech doesn't protect you, legally or morally, if you slander/libel someone. (I'm a former paralegal and I have studied this stuff.)
For those who disagree with this suit, consider this. What if someone posted your name and picture and accused you of being a child molester? Lets say lots of people, including your family members, boss & boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse saw it. Would simply logging in and correcting that entry satisfy you?
Sorry folks, I know a lot of you consider the Internet to be a playground where no one gets hurt and there are no consequences for your actions. But, that's not how it works. If wikipedia is knowingly letting this go on, they deserve to get sued. There actions are just as bad as Yahoo's when they kept dragging their feet on removing that woman's fake personal a while back. - Brak710101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why would they do that? Wikipedia has to be one of the coolest sites on the internet.
- Dujoducom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here are some links that everyone should send them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Of_Speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#The_Internet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation
Sincerely,
Freedom of Speech - stark23x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While I dislike this lawsuit, some of you people need to learn what the term "Free Speech" means. You cannot publish lies about people that could damage them in various legal ways and call it free speech. Free speech is about the right to criticize your government. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for this case...the minute Wikipedia started trying to control the content, they became a content provider, and assumed the responsiblity for said content. If that content defames and damages another, the powers that be at Wikipedia are responsible.
Sue the site out of existence? Silly. Sue to force the people who run it to run it more responsibly? Since they refuse to do it themselves...yes, perhaps they need to be forced to be more responsible. As long as it's a CIVIL matter and the government is NOT involved, I say let them sue. A lawsuit is a disagreement between two private entities that will be arbitrated by a third entity, nothing more nothing less. As long as it's not the government, I'm all for it. Settle the issue without a billion dollars worth of Congressional oversight. - willin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2loveandrockets: good comment. The thing is - John Seigenthaler Jr. is an NBC commentator. In other words, you don't overthrow the old media (read billions and billions ... of dollars) without them using every dirty trick they can think of, including dragging out dad to create an essentially false controversy.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.*****.org/
this lawsuit is *****, wikipedia does far more good than not. - skimitar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2sorry, I can't type, those links should be:
http://volunteers.baou.com/index.php?act=contact
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OfficialWire - Brak710101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Freedom of speech, too. No way to legally win this.
- skwashd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They left off a dot point under " Our intention and the purpose of this website is multi-fold. Specifically, we seek to achieve the following:"
Have wikipedia allow us to use some M$ product we are comfortable with to edit and post information there, as our heads are so far up our own arses we can't use the standard wikipedia editor.
IANAL but I see several grounds for a case against this bunch of morons:
* Unauthorized use of the wikipedia logo
* Use of the slanderous term "The Inaccurate Encyclopedia"
* Their page doesn't validate - http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//www.wikipediaclassaction.org/ :) - stark23x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2AMAZING...everyone cries "Free Speech" but you want to silence the guys who are considering suing. You want to go so afr as to spam and hack and DOS the site.
You wouldn't know free speech if it bit you in the ass. The irony in this thread is *unreal*. - Jack9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I don't understand how wikipedia can be sued. This is like suing a gun manufacturer because someone got shot at but not killed or anything. They are not responsible for what their users do......this is a bunch of BS.....where are the people with the botnets...."
You can't claim to be a gun manufacturer when ppl aim pistols you produce and bullets promptly get fired into your chest because of how someone decided to ***** with a certain page. How's that for mixing completely idiotic analogies?
Unfortunately Wikipedia CLAIMS to be an encyclopedia, when it's just a complicated message board. They need to stop doing that. No more legal challenges. Will they stop claiming to be a kind of Encyclopedia? Nope. The so-called "savvy" Wikipedia fans need to think about why they refuse. I believe it's because Wikipedia uses the word "encyclopedia" to market and to engender trust, which is disingenuous and irresponsible on it's face.
It's more akin to selling anti-aging pills than a gun manufacturer. - FinlayMcWalter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Class actions are run by law firms who expect to collect a large sum of money, both for members of the class and for themselves. So they sue auto makers, drug companies, and airlines. You have to expect to recover millions of dollars for the whole business to be worthwhile.
The Wikimedia Foundation, by contrast, is essentially litigation-proof. It's got virtually no cash, no real assets, no income, no customers, no contracts, and no worthwhile intellectual property (individual contributors own the encyclopedia, collectively; the foundation owns none of it). Other than goodwill, its major assets are a farm of computers (for which, after expenses, you'd get very little money for) and the Wikipedia trademark and domain name.
Anyone suing Wikipedia will lose money doing so. For folks like Seigenthaler whose primary concern is getting libelous information removed, this might be worth it. But no lawyer is going to take this on contingency. - chess007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This isn't, as I understand it, a freedom of speech issue. The First Amendment does not grant media outlets the right to print libelous (false) information about a person, and it does not protect such outlets from civil penalties."
Really? What about all the tabloids? I was shocked to read that Pamela Anderson had an alien baby. lol You have to be wrong because tabloids always print crazy stuff which I know they can't prove to be true. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wikipedia is useless. It's so slanted with unbiased articles and you never know what you are reading is truth or not. I would trust the information in wikipedia as far as I could throw a car...
I could care less if its shut down or not, as I'd never use it for anything remotely serious. If those who run wikipedia wanted to be taken seriously from the start, they should have instilled a more rigid submission and editorial guideline from the get go... - chess007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 I have found a lot of good, reliable information on wikipedia. Just because a few idiots write crazy, false information does not mean that most of the information there is incorrect.
To beleive that most of the information is wrong, or that wikipedia is in general unreliable (because of a few idiots) is flawed logic. Its called a "broad generality."
That would be like saying,
1. I was robbed by a *insert race here* man
2. Because I was robbed by this *insert race here* man, all men of this race are likely to rob me.
Very dumb logic. Compare that 2:
1. A small amout of the information on wikipedia is incorrect
2. Therefore, its all incorrect.
Again, dumb logic.
Its a freedom of speak issue. If a person doesn't like the entry about them then CHANGE it.
Think of how many blogs, message boards, etc post incorrect information. SDhould they all be sued?
Heck, if someone stands on the street corner and says that aliens control the federal governtment (and mentions the names of representatives) that's clearly insane, but he can't be sued. - Nick_Circosta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do i smell a Digg Effect comming along... we could take this site down ... and make them pay :P
-Nick - y2048, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's hard to believe this would be real:
Hiding behind a P.O.Box
Where's the lawfirm that's supposedly pursuing this?
Google Ads. Why would a classaction need ad-money???
Use of copyrighted material on the site
That being said, the site appears to be linked to http://news.baou.com/ , as they both use the same google_ad_client ID, and baou.com is registered under the same P.O.Box. The "official wire" as they call themselves does have some wikipedia articles, but they don't seem very official; the "buy our products" link goes to a cafepress store where the first item is a thong!
can we really take thong-peddlers seriously? - vvaduva, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Since I experienced this firsthand (inaccurate information aimed at myself and my own website) on wikipedia, I can't decide whether or not this is a good thing or not. On the same note, someone can't put out a newspaper, finance it and print, then let everyone out there create content that presents inaccurate information about other people and groups of people without any oversight. And no, the lame excuse "we don't create the content" simply doesn't fly.
As a libertarian, my heart breaks seeing this could happen but Wikipedia can't say they didn't see this coming with all the crap they allow to be posted on their site. - ever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Spencerocks, thanks for the www.*****.org tip. Excellent site. Worth reading, y'all :).
- CaptHarlock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1F Wikipedia, "factual" contents are decided by mob rule and articles can be poisoned by one person.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For much that I love the site the bias it has is unbearable, some people there think just the only fact of having an account gives them the title of kings. Adding a topic, a synonym or a simple paragraph is a pain in the ass with so many "moderators".
- flashmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The "lawsuit" site does three things:
1. Collect Google Syndication revenue (see their sidebar of ads)
2. Promote the journalist John Siginathler
3. Collect email addresses - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"They mention this guy Siegenthaler, who worked 4 MONTHS to get the rumor that he was involved in JFK's assassination off the website! Didn't he know about the Edit feature?
Seriously, just edit it and leave a comment. "I didn't kill JFK.""
Maybe he shot J.R. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think I'd be able to take it a bit more seriously if this page didn't have Google ads on it. Who tries for advertising on a site announcing a class action lawsuit?
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I could be wrong here, but I have heard from some very trustworthy people that lawsuits against GNU licensed web sites and projects are possibly funded by terrorists working for law firms. But don't go spreading that info around, cause I'm not sure if it's true or not.
- Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is about libel, which is NOT PROTECTED by the 1st amendment.
- neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Holy crap! Dvorak was right!
- mike_p, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This lawsuit is about as stable as a 90-year old man on Vioxx...
They might as well take the paper with all that legal mumbo jumbo and wipe their asses with it... this case is going no where. ***** moronic losers at their office who think with dollar signs but forgot their brain at home. - Sacrifusion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It doesn't seem like any of you have really been effected by the anti-info on wikipedia or else you might be singing a different song. I belong to an organization who has tried to establish a presence on their site and we have been bullied and mock by not the users but the moderators and site administration. Free Encyclopedia? How free does that sound to you?
- princess_apple, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think this is a scam. Class Action Lawsuit are brought about by law firms that don't operate P.O. Boxes and don't need income from Google Ads.
- MasterDwarf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Chance of money=lots of lawyers + dumb frivolous merits
May be the guy that this is all stemmed from is suffering from mental anguish because they did change the entry for Christ's sake. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What about all the message boards out there with a little bit of false info? This is not a good place to be going with this suit.
Forum moderators cant ALWAYS make sure the content is true, and that is what they want, to make sure everything is true all the time! - photojunky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1how is wikipedia any different from any old newsgroup, where anyone can say anything. Are these guys going to now shutdown all USENET newsgroups next???
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@merm
"There's no way in hell they will win a libel case in the United States against wikipedia. The overwhelming problem is that while anyone can post information to it, anyone can also correct false or libelous information on it"
Sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't actually work out that way. Read the "talk" on Daniel Brandt and Michael Graham's entries. When someone corrects a mistake on a "controversial" (read: contrary to Wikipedian Ideology) subject, the correction is immediately corrected and the corrector is often called a troll. The subject of the article himself may even be banned. One anonymous admin on the Daniel Brandt article refers to "Brandt and his trolls"--la belling everyone who removes the pro-Wikipedia basis from Brandt articles a troll. The reality is, correcting mistakes about yourself on Wikipedia could become a full-time job, and will result in even more libelous invasion.
Of course, for a polemicist (read: Meatspace Troll) like Ann Coulter, who thrives on criticism, Wikipedia can be a great asset.
(Note: When I say "Wikipedian Ideology" I am not saying that Wikipedia is ruled by a cabal or that the members are literally in lockstep. Ideology in this sense is a derogatory term for the social norms of a subculture. All groups have them. I've found that, as time goes on, community blogs become more extreme and restrictive--"specialized" if you want a polite term.)
@photojunky
"how is wikipedia any different from any old newsgroup, where anyone can say anything. Are these guys going to now shutdown all USENET newsgroups next???"
That's not a bad idea. Usenet culture is firmly entrenched, and it's where Wikipedia is heading. This wasn't a problem before Google made Usenet into a permanent record, but now it is a very serious privacy concern as well as a cesspool of infamy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1looks like they took the google ads down, not to mention that they have very slightly modified the Wikipedia logo, I guess so they are not imposing on the copyright.
And it also looks like their email just sends out responses... or the person responding simply has a cut and paste email. -
Show 51 - 100 of 250 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is