Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
"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.
Oleg, Thanks for your support.
Uri.
--------------------------------------------------------
=================================================================
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]
