On 3/30/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 3/29/07, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
We're going to have more than a major hole in
our coverage if we lose a lawsuit.
Why? Aside from requiring us to take down
whatever libelous
misinformation we lost the case over (which we would want to do
_anyway_), what limitation would it put on Wikipedia's coverage?
If someone with money were to sue Wikipedia for having damaged him --
or were to finance a lawsuit brought by someone else -- it could end
up costing a great deal because of the global distribution of the
content, and perhaps also because we've not shown ourselves to be
deadly serious about getting rid of defamation. Unlike news
organizations Wikipedia has no libel insurance so it could put us out
of business.
Okay, I guess I'll accept it as a hypothetical worst-case scenario. So
Wikimedia Foundation goes out of business. The database is GFDL, we can
set up a new foundation and resume editing elsewhere. A major hassle but
IMO better than compromising the fundamental goal of writing a
comprehensive free encyclopedia.
And the assets of all the individuals involved would be pursued, as
would the assets of the new foundation. It would get very messy, would
cost a fortune, and would go on for years if someone determined and
wealthy enough went after us. All I'm arguing is that it's
irresponsible to continue year after year on the same course knowing
that these are real possibilities and relying only on luck to see us
through. No mainstream publisher or responsible business would do it.
And that's not even to mention the moral issues, which I think are
paramount for most editors.
I don't consider this scenario likely, though. We _are_ serious about
removing libel, we've got powerful policies to that effect, and the site
is laden with disclaimers in case we temporarily miss some.
Disclaimers make no difference, and I disagree that we're serious
about removing libel. We remove it when we see it, assuming the
individual editor or admin can face the fight that's often involved,
the personal attacks, and the risk of being taken to the ArbCom. But
we know there's stuff out there that we don't see, and we know that
some of it sits there for months before anyone notices. We *could* do
something about it site-wide, we *know* the consequences for some
individuals might be serious, and yet we're choosing not to change our
policies. I can see someone try to argue that this constitutes gross
negligence.
Sarah