Legal Battle Done In The Courts -- But Still Going Strong In Wikipedia
from the argue-away dept
Back in November last year, we wrote about an important ruling in the California Supreme Court, which clarified whether or not someone who reposted a defamatory article was also defamation (it's not). It was useful in clarifying section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is an important ruling that makes sure that third parties aren't held liable for the statements of others. The court's ruling focused entirely on this issue, and didn't get into the actual dispute between the parties. However, it appears the folks involved in the case simply cannot let it go. Eric Goldman points out that the parties involved in the case have taken the argument over to Wikipedia, where apparently both sides have been editing the page to change what the other side has added to try to shift the summary of the case. If you read through the discussion on the "talk" page, it becomes clear that the people who are actually involved in the case have been modifying the Wikipedia page both to add points (or links) in their favor, or get rid of the ones that the other side has added. They then proceed to argue with each other over other aspects of what they dislike about each other in the talk page as well. Hey, everyone, save it for the court room...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Edit wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_edit_wars
It's tough, but if I had to choose some of my favs, they'd have to be the diameter of the Death Star and the lineage of Cranky Kong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open wikidness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open wikidness
But in the case of 'knowing the source,' I must regretfully inform you that blogs, newspapers, encyclopedias, and many published books are written without anything remotely approaching a neutral POV all the time.
Not all wikis are created equal. Wikipedia does an excellent job in most cases. Wikinews is more problematic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trust is an illusion
Weapons of mass destruction?
45 minutes?
Republican majority?
Imminent threat?
Lone assassins?
Cheapest deal in town?
Just because you know a source does not make information reliable.
Just because you trust the source does not make information reliable.
Open your eyes and ears, watch and study, but trust nothing but your own scepticism.
The Wiki is interesting because those that engage in edit wars are trying to create an authorative version from their subject viewpoint. But the edits are logged. The more disputed and edited an entry is the more it will lose credibility. In the end it doesn't matter who had the last word, because the entry will state "credibility 0" based on the number of contrary revisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedians are not cult members!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedians are not alien crackpots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedians are not Jew haters!!!
To make sure that you do, I've put a Wiccan curse on your evil souls using an offering of goat's blood and baby parts to the goddess Rabashooloo. The Goddess will make sure that people like you never make Wikipedians look crazy again!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No more hate from Wikipedians!!
As a person suffering from OCD, ADHD, schizophrenia and restless leg syndrome, I take 15 pills a day to keep my life together. I work hard and use Wikipedia for everything! EVERYTHING!
But you people are pretending to be crazy at the expense of bona fide crazy people just to prove that Wikipedians are all crazy. As a serious Wikipedian, I strongly object to being labeled crazy just because I'm a Wikipedian. Not all Wikipedians are crazy!! NOT ALL WIKIPEDIANS ARE CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]