I agree with you re: legislation. The problem is the other side of things
- people look to Wikipedia and there are groups of people deliberately
putting up falsehoods. If someone says I'm a child abuser and I deny it -
it would for example only look bad for me ('of course he denies it' etc.).
There's no answer. I generally look elsewhere for information although
very occasionally I'll consult WP; I'm not that interested in opinion in
something that passes at least for occasional fact. In the case below, the
damage was done of course.
Any 'corrections and egregrious errors' page - simply wouldn't be
consulted. Not only that, but if you google a subject, it takes you to the
Wikipedia subject itself, not the portal page.
- Alan
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/3/05 10:15:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities
for worldwide communications and research - but populated by volunteer
vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and
protects them.
the pain of this man, unfortunately, must be measured against the use of the
net by millions.? it is possible to be run over crossing the street by some
asshole who thinks it is cute to see how close he can come to hitting a
pedestrian.?
he documents the way to find the assassin.? a john doe suit isn't very
expensive, since it will not be resisted...at least until he finds the idiot.? a
subpoena to bell south normally will issue upon request of the attorney, or even
the pro-se litigant.? if he drafts his own complaint, filing fees will be in
the short hundreds.? he can even pick a rural jurisdiction near him where
filing fees are very low, since the single publication rule should permit venue
anyplace there is wikipedia access.
unfortunately this is a cost of doing business in a free society.? he doesn't
need to sue wikipedia, and the congressional enactment is wise or there would
be millions of actions filed against providers who forward crap like this, or
even innocent and true statements which arouse some group or
individual...how'd you like the pro-life bunch suing the list serve for this
wryting group??
congress for once isn't the culprit.? it only protects the provider from
expensive litigation for passing on what may or may not be true, but which is in
such volume it can't be checked.?
his real remedy is to find the jerk and correct the matter with him
another more creative approach would be for him to recontact the wikipedia
people and ask that they link to a "corrections and egregious errors"? list they
could set up and note prominetly on their web page.? any claims of error
could be documented, and even undocumented corrections or claims could be listed
with the appropriate label that they have not been verified.
these are the only ways consistent with a free society.
bob (yes, a lawyer who has done this sort of thing)
For URLs, DVDs, CDs, books/etc. see http://www.asondheim.org/advert.txt .
Contact: Alan Sondheim, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] General
directory of work: http://www.asondheim.org .
