Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/21/06, Molu <loom91(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I can't see how reposting of our content
will make us legally more liable than we already were.
Well I don't think this is the way the law is likely to see it. In
the famous 1990s Prodigy case, an information provider that policed
its forums in much the same way that Wikipedia polices its content was
found to be a publisher of information, and thus subject to third
party liability for content. Under the Communications Decency Act
which provides a general exemption from third party liability to
online information providers, this exemption does not extend to
liability for publication by agents of the provider. A Wikipedia
administrator who uses his special powers to publish defamatory
content or copy copyright-infringing content would tend to advance the
case against Wikipedia for third-party liability.
The fallacy there is in suggesting that all admins are agents of
Wikipedia. There is nothing in any description of admins that allows
them to do anything on any site outside of a particular project. A
Wikipedia admin does not thereby receive the right to be an admin on any
sister project or even on a Wikipedia in any other language. Perhaps
you should review the meaning of "agent".
This has not been tested in court, but it would be very
expensive to
test it and Wikipedia probably would prefer to spend more of its money
on equipment and technicians than on teams of attorneys.
We do ourselves as much harm by presuming that there is a legal case
there. Sound risk management policies do not require that we stiffle
ourselves by allowing for every conceivable far-fetched possibility.
Ec