Wikipedia used for libel.

[luchog]

Yet another example of the inherent flaw in the Wikipedia model. The "self-regulating" model simply doesn't work, and this case is another prime illustration of that fact. Along with the fact that the powers that be either aren't capable or aren't interested in admitting to and dealing with the fact that their utopian visions for the project have failed miserably.

http://www.theregister.com/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/
Excerpts:

Seigenthaler, a former Robert Kennedy aide and newspaper editor wrote about his anguish a fortnight ago, describing how an edit to his Wikipedia biography implicated in him in the Kennedy assassination, and claimed he'd lived in Russia for twelve years. Both claims were false, and lay uncorrected for months.

For CNN viewers, and for NPR listeners again the following day, Wales repeated his wish to unmask the perp, but could only offer some hand-wringing excuse about the difficulty of finding anonymous users, and the complexity of serving internet service providers with subpoenas. However, we now learn that the libeler wasn't very hard to find, and has now stepped forward to confess to making the edit with an apology.

But the unusual aspect of this - and this is an irony on a par with Sony using 'DVD' Jon Johansen's anti-DRM code in its DRM CD software - is what compelled Chase to step forward. The libeller was outed not by Wikipedia guardians, but by a prominent critic of the site who has been earned himself a lifetime Wikipedia ban - researcher Daniel Brandt.

Emphasis mine.

The first, and the most immediately absurd of these two defenses, is that since nothing at all can be trusted, er, "definitively", then Wikipedia can't be trusted either. This is curious, to say the least, as it points everyone's expectations firmly downwards.

If you recall the utopian rhetoric that accompanied the advent of the public "internet" ten years ago, we were promised that unlimited access to the world's greatest "knowledge" was just around the corner. This hasn't happened, for reasons cited above, but now the public is now being exhorted to assume the posture of a citizen in an air raid, where every moving object might be a dangerous missile.

So Wikipedia's second defense rests heavily on the assumption that everyone in the whole world is participating, watching, and writing at every moment of the day, and so that a failure to pay attention represents negligence on the part of the complainer. Seigenthaler, the argument goes, was clearly being an idiot when he failed to notice that day's piece of web grafitti. Instead of taking his dog for a walk, or composing an email to his grandchildren, he should have been paying ceaseless attention to ... his Wikipedia biography.

 

[Melendwyr]

Given that Wikipedia can be so easily edited, anyone who expects an unusual claim made on it to be necessarily true really is an idiot.

 

[geni]

Yet another example of the inherent flaw in the Wikipedia model. The "self-regulating" model simply doesn't work, and this case is another prime illustration of that fact. Along with the fact that the powers that be either aren't capable or aren't interested in admitting to and dealing with the fact that their utopian visions for the project have failed miserably.

http://www.theregister.com/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/
Excerpts:

The register have thier own issues with factal accuracy. They also hate wikipedia. Thirdly the claim was probably not libilus "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assasinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."

This is factualy correct in that conspirocy wakos did indeed think that.

The libeller was outed not by Wikipedia guardians,

Well no we have a life. We don't bother tracting vandles most of the time because it tends to be a waste of time (the only exception being schools who have been known to take action).

but by a prominent critic of the site who has been earned himself a lifetime Wikipedia ban

False. Daniel Brandt is not a prominent critic. The former editer of Britanica is a prominent critic. Daniel Brandt is not. He also did not ear himself a lifetime ban. I could within policy pull the pan tomorrow. I'm not going to because the guy is an arse but I could. For more info on his block see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel_Brandt#You_Are_Now_Blocked.

 

[CFLarsen]

Given that Wikipedia can be so easily edited, anyone who expects an unusual claim made on it to be necessarily true really is an idiot.

There are people who think it is an unusual claim that Sylvia Browne does not speak to dead people.

 

[luchog]

stuff

I notice a bunch of ad hominen and irrelevencies, but nothing addressing the actual critique of the inherent flaws in the model. But then, you didn't bother to last time either, and I know better than to debate with a true-believer.

 

[CFLarsen]

I notice a bunch of ad hominen and irrelevencies, but nothing addressing the actual critique of the inherent flaws in the model. But then, you didn't bother to last time either, and I know better than to debate with a true-believer.

Just out of curiosity: Who, on this board, do you consider not to be a "true-believer"?

 

[geni]

I notice a bunch of ad hominen and irrelevencies, but nothing addressing the actual critique of the inherent flaws in the model. But then, you didn't bother to last time either, and I know better than to debate with a true-believer.

What critique? It doesn't even exaim the modle but just jumps on the bandwagon of the current wave of media critism. The register hates wikipedia. We know this. This is not news.

Wikipedia has been going for just under 5 years. It is still slightly under construction.

The article uses the standard it will be overwelmed by people acting in bad faith. So far it would appear that this is not the case.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wikipedia works great. The ONLY reason that it was left alone was due to the fact it is not regullarly visited. If more people visited that page they would of corrected any mistakes.
Notice how the publicity lead to the page being corrected.


Also notice how this guy refused to correct it HIMSELF. Wikipedia is not flawed because anyone who sees a flaw can correct it. The guy should of simply made the corrections himself and informed wikipedia of them.
Instead he refused to correct it and then claim wikipedia is inherently flawed.

Also the onlything written about it was..
"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."

Which is NOT false. He WAS thought to have been involved as Geni mentioned.

Of course the wording is bad but it's not necissarly untrue. And the man could of changed the wording himself thus proving wikipedia is not flawed in design. But of course he did not do that.
Sure...Incorrect info is rampant on wikipedia. So what? It's always improving. Anyone going there should be sure they know it's not always 100% correct and be willing to make corrections theirself.

 

[geni]

Wikipedia works great. The ONLY reason that it was left alone was due to the fact it is not regullarly visited. If more people visited that page they would of corrected any mistakes.
Notice how the publicity lead to the page being corrected.


Also notice how this guy refused to correct it HIMSELF. Wikipedia is not flawed because anyone who sees a flaw can correct it. The guy should of simply made the corrections himself and informed wikipedia of them.
Instead he refused to correct it and then claim wikipedia is inherently flawed.

To be fair to him he has managed to get himself a lot of media exposure.

Also the onlything written about it was..
"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."

Which is NOT false. He WAS thought to have been involved as Geni mentioned.

Unfortunetly it included the line:

John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984.

Which is outright false.

Of course the wording is bad but it's not necissarly untrue. And the man could of changed the wording himself thus proving wikipedia is not flawed in design. But of course he did not do that.
Sure...Incorrect info is rampant on wikipedia. So what? It's always improving. Anyone going there should be sure they know it's not always 100% correct and be willing to make corrections theirself.

Heh the current buzz phrase is big 1995 style under construction banners.

 

[Diamond]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to be blunt. The claims made by wikipedia in this matter are arrogant, self-righteous bullsh*t of the highest order. I've made the remark before that skeptics themselves have blind spots when it comes to certain subjects (eg Global Warming) where normal skeptical thinking gets thrown out of the window and the fallacies fly.

For example, geni

The register have thier own issues with factal accuracy. They also hate wikipedia. Thirdly the claim was probably not libilus "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assasinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."

This is factualy correct in that conspirocy wakos did indeed think that.

How many fallacies can you count? I count at least three.

"The register have thier own issues with factal accuracy." - tu quoque

"They also hate wikipedia." - appeal to motives

"Thirdly the claim was probably not libilus "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assasinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." - weasel words

"This is factualy correct in that conspirocy wakos did indeed think that." - begging the question AND argument from silence.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Imagine, for the sake of example, that Seigenthaler decided to sue wikipedia for slander of character, smear and innuendo based on his biography. He gets a good lawyer, goes to court and asks the jury if its right for some website to publish slanderous accusations against his name.

The allegations were spead around the Internet with the full cooperation of the Wikipedia Foundation, and that Wikipedia did not do anything to check the truth or falsity of what was published on its website. Will James Wales be going for the "Wikipedia is still in beta" or the "we don't bother tracing vandals because we have a life" or perhaps the "the responsibility of correcting a biography rests with the person profiled" defence?

The software that wikipedia runs on may be designated as a beta, the wikipedia may declare itself to be in beta form, but these are not legal defences in any court against publishing libelous allegations against people. As far as I am aware, the legal responsibility for the accuracy of information in any medium remains with the author and the publisher, not the object.

Do you think any jury would accept the excuses made by Wales and repeated here?

Do you think, for example, that Randi and the JREF can be relaxed about slanderous and untrue accusations made about people on this forum because the software and the collection of information is constantly in beta awaiting some final authoritative form some time in the far future? Do you think they would get away with such things?

I have no idea whether Daniel Brandt can be described as a "prominent" critic or not, and frankly I don't care. I read about Brandt quite accidentally and followed up by reading his website(s). Some of his stuff i don't agree with, some I think has merit. But there is one thing that I'm sure he's right about - for wikipedia to claim itself to be an encyclopedia of facts without taking responsibilty to ensure that those facts are correct is an abuse of the concept of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does not give anyone carte blanche to disseminate lies with no comeback. It doesn't in America, or anywhere else, including the Internet.

This is where my personal responsibility comes because I am a publisher of a wiki. I rent the webserver, lease the domain and I allow people to write articles to be published on individuals that allege facts. The Seigenthaler affair has caused me to ask some searching questions about what can be allowed as "fair comment" and what cannot.

If Brandt is so terribly wrong, why is Wikipedia's behavior making him look like a martyr?

 

[casebro]

A couple thougths about this, one is the guy ain't been libeled until the courts say he's been libeled. And, nothing in the Register says anything about charges even being filed.

and this, from the Wiki site-

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 861,727 articles."

If you take that as meaning everything in it is gospel, you need to get on the net more.

 

[geni]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to be blunt. The claims made by wikipedia in this matter are arrogant, self-righteous bullsh*t of the highest order. I've made the remark before that skeptics themselves have blind spots when it comes to certain subjects (eg Global Warming) where normal skeptical thinking gets thrown out of the window and the fallacies fly.

For example, geni



How many fallacies can you count? I count at least three.

"The register have thier own issues with factal accuracy." - tu quoque

"They also hate wikipedia." - appeal to motives

"Thirdly the claim was probably not libilus "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assasinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." - weasel words

Nope facts. The article is badly done smear job from a low grade source. Now if luchog had chosen one of the serious media sources that have been laying into us for the last week I would have had more than superficial critisms to deal with and there for would have needed to make more througher responces

"This is factualy correct in that conspirocy wakos did indeed think that." - begging the question AND argument from silence.

No.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Imagine, for the sake of example, that Seigenthaler decided to sue wikipedia for slander of character, smear and innuendo based on his biography. He gets a good lawyer, goes to court and asks the jury if its right for some website to publish slanderous accusations against his name.

Wikipedia points out that under US law it is not liable and depending on how the foundation is feeling countersues claiming the lawsuit was friviours

The allegations were spead around the Internet with the full cooperation of the Wikipedia Foundation, and that Wikipedia did not do anything to check the truth or falsity of what was published on its website. Will James Wales be going for the "Wikipedia is still in beta" or the "we don't bother tracing vandals because we have a life" or perhaps the "the responsibility of correcting a biography rests with the person profiled" defence?

Nah we'd use the letter of the law defence.

The software that wikipedia runs on may be designated as a beta,

No MediaWiki: 1.6devel

the wikipedia may declare itself to be in beta form, but these are not legal defences in any court against publishing libelous allegations against people. As far as I am aware, the legal responsibility for the accuracy of information in any medium remains with the author and the publisher, not the object.

Stangly no laws relateing to this area of the internet mean that the foundation is pretty much bullet proff

Do you think any jury would accept the excuses made by Wales and repeated here?

Do you think, for example, that Randi and the JREF can be relaxed about slanderous and untrue accusations made about people on this forum because the software and the collection of information is constantly in beta awaiting some final authoritative form some time in the far future? Do you think they would get away with such things?

Sure as long as they hand over IPs and remove stuff when ordered to do so by a court they don't have to worry about content of the posts.

I have no idea whether Daniel Brandt can be described as a "prominent" critic or not, and frankly I don't care. I read about Brandt quite accidentally and followed up by reading his website(s). Some of his stuff i don't agree with, some I think has merit. But there is one thing that I'm sure he's right about - for wikipedia to claim itself to be an encyclopedia of facts without taking responsibilty to ensure that those facts are correct is an abuse of the concept of freedom of speech.

Better contact your ISP and tell them what you think they are doing is wrong. Same common carrier system.

Freedom of speech does not give anyone carte blanche to disseminate lies with no comeback. It doesn't in America, or anywhere else, including the Internet.

Correct. People are free to sue the author.

This is where my personal responsibility comes because I am a publisher of a wiki. I rent the webserver, lease the domain and I allow people to write articles to be published on individuals that allege facts. The Seigenthaler affair has caused me to ask some searching questions about what can be allowed as "fair comment" and what cannot.

I don't know UK law in this area. I'm not sure there have been any test cases.

If Brandt is so terribly wrong, why is Wikipedia's behavior making him look like a martyr?

What blocking him? Because we have a finite tolerence for jerks (remeber his initial objection was that we were invadeing his privicy. Ironic no?). It's pretty high but sooner or latter we will remove you. The rest is because the guy is a pretty competant campainer.

 

[geni]

A couple thougths about this, one is the guy ain't been libeled until the courts say he's been libeled. And, nothing in the Register says anything about charges even being filed.

and this, from the Wiki site-

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 861,727 articles."

If you take that as meaning everything in it is gospel, you need to get on the net more.

Please note those staments are only true for given values of anyone and article.

 

[geni]

Hmmm the chinese news agency is now reporting this:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-12/12/content_3910441.htm

I wounder why. We are blocked in china.

 

[Mojo]

Nope facts. The article is badly done smear job from a low grade source.

The Register one or the Wikipedia one?

 

[geni]

The Register one or the Wikipedia one?

Both. However the wikipedia one has improved somewhat. Now we just need to explain to certian people that fair use does not mean take what you want.

 

[Diamond]

Nope facts. The article is badly done smear job from a low grade source.

You mean the anon editor or wikipedia itself? Wikipedia does not make such a differentiation between "low grade" or "high grade", remember? Is it ironice that you make that comment about its sources that Wikipedia freely admits it does not make?

Now if luchog had chosen one of the serious media sources that have been laying into us for the last week I would have had more than superficial critisms to deal with and there for would have needed to make more througher responces

So theregister isn't a "serious media source" so you don't need to bother? What qualifies as a "serious media source"? Does "Wikipedia" itself qualify?

Is it because The Register publishes on the web only rather than also publishing on treeware?

Wikipedia points out that under US law it is not liable and depending on how the foundation is feeling countersues claiming the lawsuit was friviours

That legal position has not been tested. There have been libel suits won against people writing materials on websites, e-mails or Usenet that are factually wrong, so Wikipedia is skating on thin legal grounds, if it thinks it has full protection from libel suits. Practically every person sued has claimed "that the suit is frivolous and they will countersue".

The software that wikipedia runs on may be designated as a beta,

No MediaWiki: 1.6devel

Oh puleese. Is this a defence?

Freedom of speech does not give anyone carte blanche to disseminate lies with no comeback. It doesn't in America, or anywhere else, including the Internet.

Correct. People are free to sue the author.

Nope. AND THE PUBLISHER. The publisher is also wholly responsible, not just the author.

That's why when people sue about a newspaper article or a book , they sue both the author and the Publisher.

Both wikipedia authors AND its publisher (the Wikimedia Foundation) have responsibility under the law. The author(s) may be John Doe(s) initially, but Wikimedia itself also have joint responsibility.

Imagine, for the sake of example that Uri Geller were to sue me for content about him on the Skepticwiki (not as if he hasn't threatened libel against others). It would be under British Law, since both the server and the publisher are British. Under Britain's draconian libel laws, they would have the right to full discovery of my home, my data on all my computers, any diaries or notes I may have. I would have to prove that what I published was true or could be described as "fair comment". Note: I would have to a) prove that Mr Geller was not really harmed or b) that what I said was "fair comment or c) that what I alleged about Geller was true. All Geller would have to do is demonstrate harm to his reputation.

I have a legal responsibility for what is published, like it or not.

Its only a matter of time before Wikimedia gets sued. It occupies a temporary legal blind spot, but it won't last for long. Somebody will sue it, and then others wronged will join in a class action. I'm sure that Wikimedia will hide behind the First Amendment but I'm not sure that it will succeed.

Perhaps there needs to be a legal disclaimer underneath every article in Wikipedia that is carried across to every site that scrapes information from it:

"Wikimedia Foundation does not make any claim to the factual accuracy, reliability or any legal or financial responsibility for the content of this article. This article may be partially or completely wrong or misleading in each and every one of its claims and that no systematic checking, other than by unqualified volunteers is made to establish the veracity of any statement made. Wikipedia articles are subject to vandalism, misinformation, ignorance or honest mistakes and cannot be used as authoritative sources for any information. Wikimedia articles are art or entertainment rather than factual."

 

[geni]

You mean the anon editor or wikipedia itself? Wikipedia does not make such a differentiation between "low grade" or "high grade", remember? Is it ironice that you make that comment about its sources that Wikipedia freely admits it does not make?

Featured aticles? wikiproject wikipedia 1.0

So theregister isn't a "serious media source" so you don't need to bother?

Pretty much. This story has been done much better by much more serious media sources (such as the BBC it made it onto PM).

What qualifies as a "serious media source"? Does "Wikipedia" itself qualify?

No.

Is it because The Register publishes on the web only rather than also publishing on treeware?

No:

http://thomashawk.com/2005/11/andrew-orlowski-and-register-bad.html

That legal position has not been tested. There have been libel suits won against people writing materials on websites, e-mails or Usenet that are factually wrong, so Wikipedia is skating on thin legal grounds, if it thinks it has full protection from libel suits. Practically every person sued has claimed "that the suit is frivolous and they will countersue".

Against authors. No one has managed to touch say Yahoo for the contents of geocities.

Oh puleese. Is this a defence?

No it's a correction

Nope. AND THE PUBLISHER. The publisher is also wholly responsible, not just the author.

But wikipedia isn't a publisher but a common carrier.

That's why when people sue about a newspaper article or a book , they sue both the author and the Publisher.

The publishers of books and nwspapers are not common carriers.

Both wikipedia authors AND its publisher (the Wikimedia Foundation) have responsibility under the law. The author(s) may be John Doe(s) initially, but Wikimedia itself also have joint responsibility.

No the wikimedia foundation is not the publisher. Just as Yahoo is not the publisher for the stuff on geocites. You don't really think the foundation hasn't taken legal advice on this.

Imagine, for the sake of example that Uri Geller were to sue me for content about him on the Skepticwiki (not as if he hasn't threatened libel against others). It would be under British Law, since both the server and the publisher are British. Under Britain's draconian libel laws, they would have the right to full discovery of my home, my data on all my computers, any diaries or notes I may have. I would have to prove that what I published was true or could be described as "fair comment". Note: I would have to a) prove that Mr Geller was not really harmed or b) that what I said was "fair comment or c) that what I alleged about Geller was true. All Geller would have to do is demonstrate harm to his reputation.

I have a legal responsibility for what is published, like it or not.

I don't know UK law in this area. FWIW I would try and find someone in the US to take ownership of the site.

Its only a matter of time before Wikimedia gets sued. It occupies a temporary legal blind spot, but it won't last for long. Somebody will sue it, and then others wronged will join in a class action. I'm sure that Wikimedia will hide behind the First Amendment but I'm not sure that it will succeed.

No the foudation will hide behind the common carrier clause. No need to invoke the first amendment when the foundation has something a lot more solid to hide behind.

Perhaps there needs to be a legal disclaimer underneath every article in Wikipedia that is carried across to every site that scrapes information from it:

"Wikimedia Foundation does not make any claim to the factual accuracy, reliability or any legal or financial responsibility for the content of this article. This article may be partially or completely wrong or misleading in each and every one of its claims and that no systematic checking, other than by unqualified volunteers is made to establish the veracity of any statement made. Wikipedia articles are subject to vandalism, misinformation, ignorance or honest mistakes and cannot be used as authoritative sources for any information. Wikimedia articles are art or entertainment rather than factual."

Way ahead of you. This page is linked to from every page on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer


We are not responcible for how other people use content that has been released under the GFDL and is included in wikipedia.

 

[Diamond]

Nope. AND THE PUBLISHER. The publisher is also wholly responsible, not just the author.

But wikipedia isn't a publisher but a common carrier.

No its not the common carrier. It's very definitely the publisher. The common carrier is the ISP whose rackspace it uses, the DNS system, ICANN, Verisign, and people who maintain the router networks that allow Wikipedia through.

Yahoo has been threatened with being sued for libel on many occasions - it always warns the author and if its not changed pronto, it deletes the site.

 

[geni]

No its not the common carrier. It's very definitely the publisher. The common carrier is the ISP whose rackspace it uses, the DNS system, ICANN, Verisign, and people who maintain the router networks that allow Wikipedia through.

Same set of laws apply. We been through this dosens of times on wikipedia in the last few days. The foundation is bullet proof at least as far as US lible law is concernded. Criminal and copyright is slightly more complex.

Yahoo has been threatened with being sued for libel on many occasions - it always warns the author and if its not changed pronto, it deletes the site.

No one has succeed in sueing yahoo or Lycos I don't know of any cases of a forum being sued for the content of a post. As long as you remove stuff when the court tells you to it's a non issue.