"Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: [off topic] Wikipedia & > Jimmy Wales": > > Believe me, I know.
Uri, I am sorry, I don't think this particular argument sounds very convincing... ;-) > But the fact is that anybody (including you and me) can go to Wikipedia > and fix what we find wrong. If you decide to go to Wikipedia's site, > you can set its agenda. This is very different from other sites, like > http://google-watch.org itself, where I cannot modify what they say if I > don't like them. So perhaps google-watch.org is more "dangerous" than > Wikipedia?? Personally, I think neither is dangerous. > > It's ironic how this guy's main blaim of Wikipedia is that anybody > can come in and write a article badmouthing him. And this when this > guy's job and hobby is writing sites that badmouthing others > (politicians, Google, and now Wikipedia)? At least in Wikipedia, the > "victim" can correct the errors - on his sites, his victims have no > recourse. I don't want to pour fuel onto this fire, but, without voicing any opinion on that particular guy (who may or may not be a scumbag), I think he raises a couple of good points. 1) He is quite aware of the fact that one can go and change a Wikipedia article. He makes what seems to be a valid point that anyone else can, too, anonymously, and as a result one can never be sure that the site is fair, correct, non-defaming, non-libelous, etc., at any given moment. 2) His other point is also valid. If anyone puts libelous information on a website, presumably one can be sued. Now, that guy is looking for someone whom he can sue over what he considers libel on Wikipedia (OK, he maybe a litigious bastard, but that's besides the point). Now, the people who run Wikipedia apparently tell him they are not responsible for the content, and he has no idea who the authors of the offending material are. Granted, this situation is no different from, say, Slashdot, where one can post comments anonymously. However, it brings up an interesting, and possibly new, legal point. The guy faces what he considers libel in a very popular online publication, and he is seeking satisfaction by legal means. It is not up to any of us to decide whether he is right or wrong. The point is, the modern society based on the rule of law should give him a way to defend himself against what he considers libel (he may lose the battle - that is irrelevant). There are traditional publications that publish anonymous articles. Among periodicals, possibly the best known is The Economist. They have no by-lines, but I presume that the editors and the publishers are fully responsible for the contents, including potential responsibility for libel. Are Wikipedia owners/editors/whoever equally responsible? Thus, Nadav, I think you got it quite backwards when you say that if one publishes libel on a personal site "the victims have no recourse." In that case, they do. The guy is looking for a similar recourse in the case of Wikipedia. Once again, this does not imply that the guy has a good case or is not a bastard - I don't care. I really don't think that the situation is so clear-cut either way. I am not a big fan of the justice systems of most country, but in this case maybe some good might result from a court hearing and a thoroughly considered opinion of a competent judge. Is Haim Ravia reading this? -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.goldshmidt.org ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
