Satellite Radio Merger Rumors Gather Steam, Again

Legal Battle Done In The Courts -- But Still Going Strong In Wikipedia

from the argue-away dept

Fri, Jan 12th 2007 2:07pm — Mike Masnick

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

13 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chaos, 12 Jan 2007 @ 3:15pm

And by the way................how are they able to remove information from the other side?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gulfy32, 12 Jan 2007 @ 3:37pm

Re:
By pressing the edit button.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jo Mamma, 12 Jan 2007 @ 3:47pm

Edit wars
Yeah, edit wars on Wikipedia are pretty cool. They've got a whole list of them here...
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 thread ]
Beefcake, 12 Jan 2007 @ 3:52pm

Open wikidness
This is why I place about as much stock in an open-to-anyone wiki entry as I would a fact scratched into a public toilet stall. "Worth looking into" at best. A idea is only as credible as it's source, so if you don't know the source, you can't trust the idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
misanthropic humanist, 12 Jan 2007 @ 4:04pm

trust is an illusion
"so if you don't know the source, you can't trust the idea.

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 thread ]
Nick D (profile), 12 Jan 2007 @ 6:05pm

Wait! We can get shill lawyers to become wikipedia trolls, spending time in edit wars when they could be filing or defending another frivolous lawsuit? I'm all for it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2007 @ 6:20pm

Wikipedia needs to admit this is an issue and allow a feature that lets both sides of a highly polarized topic put their arguments up, then lock the effing topic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Regretfully Retrominded, 12 Jan 2007 @ 10:07pm

Re: Open wikidness
Open to anyone entries are open to a certain amount of skepticism, true, which is why you see all those citations and 'citation needed' links in many of the better articles.

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 thread ]
Baal, 13 Jan 2007 @ 2:05pm

wow...there are a lot of people out there with WAY to much time on thier hands. So they use it to fight on a site that can be edited by anyone. WOW...didn't know that grade school bullshit went that far into the real world. Guess I can't say that I'm to shocked over it. There are some pretty ignorant and stupid people out there. YAY inbreeding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jesusisinmyheart, 23 Feb 2007 @ 3:46pm

Wikipedians are not cult members!!!
Don't say anything bad about Wikipedia. I believe that Jimbo Wales is an alien that has come down to earth to teach us how to learn and love others. Wikipedia is the greatest tool alive and I use it in all my essays and I only use Wikipedia as my reference material, never books which are full of stinky ink that gets all over my hands. This is because Wikipedia is a superior source of information, having been created by aliens, specifically the aliens from Alpha Centauri, who are all-wise and have great love for human beings. Give Wikipedia a chance. Give aliens a chance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SlippyJoe, 23 Feb 2007 @ 3:53pm

Wikipedians are not alien crackpots
Dammit, somebody is mocking Wikipedia members. I'm an avid Wikipedia member and think that it educates me a lot. Just because you're a Wikipedian doesn't mean that you're a crackpot and believe in aliens like that damn kook above. Why are people slandering Wikipedians??? I betcha it's the Jews again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WiccanVegan, 23 Feb 2007 @ 3:56pm

Wikipedians are not Jew haters!!!
I am also an avid Wikipedian but I'm not a Raelian cult member or a Jew hater like the freaks above!!! I think you people are giving Wikipedians a bad name and should stop it!

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 thread ]
manicAdhd, 23 Feb 2007 @ 4:02pm

No more hate from Wikipedians!!
You people are awful! Seriously, your jokes about crazy people are completely offensive.

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 thread ]