Poe, Marshall wrote:
Re the first amendment, and the authors failure to edit
his own article,
etc.
The Wikipedia project itself bears some responsibility here. If you are
going to provide a soapbox for folks to stand on and exercise their
first amendment rights, you are in part responsible for what they say.
This is common sense, and SOP in all "establishment" (read "trusted")
print publications. The editors stand behind what the authors say. As
Mr. Seigenthaler says, his bio, which was broadcast from our soapbox,
was full of errors, some of which (by his accounting, and hopefully not
that of any court) were libelous. Alas (and in distinction to
traditional print publications with bylines), Mr. Seigenthaler has no
recourse, because he can't really find out who wrote the words that he
finds offensive so that he might take legal action. These are serious
ethical issues, and I don't think we should dismiss them.
I don't see how that differs from UseNet, which has for decades allowed
anonymous postings, with no editor to stand behind them. If you get
libeled on usenet, well, that's just too bad, eh? Post a rebuttal.
And in this case, I don't see how ethical issues enter into it at all.
If the biography is inaccurate, it should be edited, and in fact anyone
(including the offended person) can do so. The ability to sue whoever
first made it inaccurate is superfluous.
-Mark