I'm not a lawyer, but we really can't be accountable for other people's website especially when they fail to update in a timely manner or update at all. I think answers.com is reasonably quick. It picked up all my changes to the mummy article when I made them, but if something is heavily edited (like Seigenthaler or Bush) it may simply lack behind, because whatever it does, it cannot be as up-to-date as Wikipedia itself.

Mgm

On 12/13/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:

I was thinking about something during the whole Seigenthaler thing, about the mirrors of wikipedia (I apologise if this has already been discussed, if it has, I haven't seen it). One of his big complaints was that even though wikipedia removed his information instantly it stayed on several of our mirrors such as answers.com and others. Legally speaking, can wikipedia be held accountable for that? My gut feeling is that we can't (mostly because we shouldn't be) because thats the other servers' problem. That is, if they hold old, now nonexisting on wikipedia libellous claims, can we be sued for that? It seems like a case of "Hey, we removed it long ago, if you have a problem with other servers, take it up with them".

Can anyone clarify the legal aspects of this for a poor, legally illitarate wikipedian? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l