[WikiEN-l] Why the uproar over wikitruth

[Ray Saintonge]

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>On 4/22/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>The Prodigy case is irrelevant, because the CDA was passed after that
>>case.  In fact, section 230 of the CDA was created in large part as a
>>response to the Prodigy case.  See [[Section 230 of the Communications
>>Decency Act]].
>>    
>>
>Well, almost.  The common law elements of the Prodigy case stand if
>the elements of the statutory exemption of CDA 230 are not satisfied. 
>It is *probably* the case that Wikipedia can *sometimes* satisfy CDA
>230, but not always.  If someone is trusted with access to sensitive
>information in order to facilitate the smooth running of Wikipedia and
>then proceeds to publish that information, then a plaintiff, having
>notified Wikipedia of defamation and then seen the defamation
>published via a leak by a Wikipedia administrator to WikiTruth 
>*might* argue that Wikipedia did not take all reasonable steps to
>limit damage, and a court might accept this as a prima facie case for
>third party liability.
>
>This is hypothetical, but I think it demonstrates that Wikitruth, if
>its purported evidence of Wikipedia admin collusion is correct,
>represents a fairly serious problem for Wikipedia.
>
Very hypothetical.  I grant that it's a lawyers job to stretch given 
ridiculous facts as much as is necessary to satisfy the desires of the 
claimant.  There is always a chance that a ridiculous claim will 
succeed.  No position is ever safe in the courts.  In some cases 
wheel-war logs might be enough to dispel any allegation of admin collusion.

With 800 administrators how can you possibly determine the level of 
trust that we can put in each.  And there have been arguments made that 
we need more admins.  The mantra is that being an admin is no big deal.  
Once a person is an admin he has the technical ability to put the 
goatse.cx image on the main page, but we trust him not to do that.  An 
agent acts with the authority of Wikimedia in an external environment; 
is there any evidence that any ordinary admin is acting  on behalf of 
Wikimedia when he is dealing with the real world?  Agency is often 
linked with employment, but none of our admins are being paid to do that 
job.  Nobody is required to sign an agreement saying that they won't 
give away secrets or even defining what would be a secret. 

I think it would be a safe bet that in the more than 1,000,000 articles 
that we now have on the English Wikipedia (perhaps 4,000,000) when we 
combine all the projects defamatory statements continue to exist; they 
just haven't been identified.  We have no control over who can initiate 
a suit; a determined but penniless nutcase can keep you tied up in 
expensive court action for years.  He may have no realistic chance of 
winning, but you have no chance of recovering legal costs.  Where do you 
set the risk bar?  Surely it can't be set so low that you are at the 
mercy of the nutcases.

Ec