Forum Moderators: open
The question arises because Mr. Seigenthaler recently read about himself on Wikipedia and was shocked to learn that he "was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby."
"Nothing was ever proven," the biography added."
It's no good being a passive consumer of Wikipedia - it's an interactive medium, not a static publication.
If you come across something that you know to be wrong, you're supposed to correct it, not complain about it.
People who don't get that should be using Britannica or Encarta instead.
that's not the point though. Many people would have seen that already.
once again, that is not the issue. If you had your own entry, and someone wrote that you like little boys tha fact that you can edit it years after discovering it, doesn't matter.
He wrote the editorial to remind people that Wikipedia is not to be trusted--at least needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I, for one, admire the way he handled it.
I can also cut an ego-surfing senior citizen a little slack... ;)
Kaled.
I could then point to an 'authorty' site on the web to prove it.
Never have to buy a drink again
I just don't see that the currrent state of laws in the U.S. in any way support a free for all encyclopedia that allows content to be put on online without fact checking or contracts with the writers to guard against plagiarism or copyright violations.
However, in practice, for forum discussion, etc. requiring valid identification is simply not practical, but as I have said in another thread, I do believe that where defamation is involved, IP information, etc. should be provided to assist those seeking redress.
With power comes responsibility - unfortunately, that's a concept lost on many.
Kaled.
then you can say bye-bye to this forum.
This forum is heavily moderated with these types of issues in mind. The owner of popular SEO blog has recently been sued for defamation because of his comments and those posted by his readers.
"was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby."Emphasis mine...
Doesn't the fact that they say "thought" mean this isn't actually libel? That is, if it can be demonstrated that some people, regardless of how sane or insane they may have been, did believe that this guy was involved, then it's a true statement. Personally, I see no grounds for a lawsuit here even if he wanted to pursue it legally.
I just don't see that the currrent state of laws in the U.S. in any way support a free for all encyclopedia that allows content to be put on online without fact checking or contracts with the writers to guard against plagiarism or copyright violations.
Good thing most of us aren't Americans, eh? Your laws apply to you, not the rest of us.
Yeah, lucky you. Not having free speech rules. I envy you
Eh?
Not sure if you already know this, but Wikipedia is also moderated - and "with these types of issues in mind". Not as heavily moderated as WebmasterWorld. And the structure is different, but nevertheless: Wikipedia is moderated.
where defamation is involved, IP information, etc. should be provided to assist those seeking redress
Right. It simply floors me how many seem to think privacy rights extend to "say or post anything online regardless of any damage".
You can and should be held accountable for shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater as a prank or for defamation by Wiki.
This is a defect of Wikipedia, though I think this case is a huge exception to the normal high quality posts there.
A man who posted false information on an online encyclopedia linking a prominent journalist to the Kennedy assassinations says he was playing a trick on a co-worker.
What the hell did this guys mundane day job have to do with a Wikipedia entry he happened to write (as stupid as the latter may have been)? Such stories get blown up way out of proportion...
He wrote the editorial to remind people that Wikipedia is not to be trusted--at least needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I, for one, admire the way he handled it.
And, hopefully, people will understand that there is NO type of media that can be trusted completely. <snip>
[edited by: lawman at 1:36 am (utc) on Dec. 13, 2005]
[edit reason] No Politics Please [/edit]
