Before John Siegenthaler had his conniption, how many people viewed his article in the five months that the evil, terrible rumor that he (like everyone else) may have killed Kennedy was up?
Yes, I have limited sympathy for him, so I apologize in advance for the sarcasm.
I really would like to know the page views on the article.
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Before John Siegenthaler had his conniption, how many people viewed his article in the five months that the evil, terrible rumor that he (like everyone else) may have killed Kennedy was up?
Yes, I have limited sympathy for him, so I apologize in advance for the sarcasm.
I really would like to know the page views on the article.
I doubt there is any way to find out though.
-- geni
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Before John Siegenthaler had his conniption, how many people viewed his article in the five months that the evil, terrible rumor that he (like everyone else) may have killed Kennedy was up?
I'd be pretty sure almost nobody. Was it even linked from other articles?
(and wasn't the Kennedy thing even more minor than you state - I seem to recall that it said he 'had been suspected, but was cleared' or something along those lines).
Still not good that we had such incorrect info in an article, of course, but I'm sure it's far from the worst error in the current Wikipedia. I doubt it even makes the top 1,000.
-Matt
How does Wikipedia and especially the foundation square up to the following:
In the Loutchansky v. The Times Newspapers Limited case, it was established that a suit may be brought many years after the information was added, since the viewing of the material within a browser counts in law as a dissemination, and an action must be launched within a year of such dissemination. This means that if the material is viewable within the page history of an article or talk page it will allow a suit to be brought at any point.
In the Polanski vs. Vanity Fair suit it has established that the claimant need not appear in person.
In the Godfrey v. Demon Internet case has established that a host of the libellous claim has a duty to remove libellous comments and is deemed to be the publisher for the purposes of libel law.
In the Lennox Lewis & Ors. v. Don King case has established that the courts of England and Wales are suitable forums to hear libel cases as long as defamation has occurred within their jurisdiction, since internet pages are published where they are downloaded.
My questions are, has the wikipedia foundation received advice on how it is affected by libel law in England and Wales?
If so, is it possible to see a copy of that advice?
Should libellous statements be completely removed from the edit history like copyright violations are?
Should Wikipedia have a policy on libel?
I'd also ask for opinions on whether each editor who edits and yet fails to remove a libellous statement could be open to being named in a suit under England and Wales law, since it can be argued that by editing and saving the page one has in turn republished the libel.
Note also, that in England and Wales libel law, the burden of proof is on the defendant, i.e. Wikipedia, to prove the statement is true. The claimant only has to show defamation, not falsehood.
On 12/6/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
My questions are, has the wikipedia foundation received advice on how it is affected by libel law in England and Wales?
The Wikimedia Foundation is not subject to the law of England or Wales (since it lacks a legal presence there), and a judgment found against the Foundation in that jurisdiction would be subject to a First Amendment analysis under United States law before enforcement might be had in the United States. Such analysis would defeat most libel judgments based on English or Welsh law, rendering them unenforceable. Furthermore, there are defenses in United States law that render the Foundation immune to defamations actions for the actions of its volunteer editors; those defenses would also be available in a hearing to determine whether to enforce a foreign judgment.
It would be advisable for the Wikimedia Foundation to avoid establishing a legal presence within the jurisdiction of countries which lack adequate protections for free speech, however.
Kelly
On 12/6/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation is not subject to the law of England or Wales (since it lacks a legal presence there), and a judgment found against the Foundation in that jurisdiction would be subject to a First Amendment analysis under United States law before enforcement might be had in the United States. Such analysis would defeat most libel judgments based on English or Welsh law, rendering them unenforceable. Furthermore, there are defenses in United States law that render the Foundation immune to defamations actions for the actions of its volunteer editors; those defenses would also be available in a hearing to determine whether to enforce a foreign judgment.
It would be advisable for the Wikimedia Foundation to avoid establishing a legal presence within the jurisdiction of countries which lack adequate protections for free speech, however.
Hence the possibly forthcoming UK chapter would not be directly linked to the WMF, even if its sole (?) purpose would be to finance WMF.
From another point of view, the supposed lack of "freedom of speech"
laws (which isn't quite the case: it's just not as clearly stated as in US law) would seem a Very Good Thing to us if we weren't at risk of falling foul of the laws.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
Hence the possibly forthcoming UK chapter would not be directly linked to the WMF, even if its sole (?) purpose would be to finance WMF.
That's not going to be its purpose, or even its secret intended purpose. Current plan is not in fact to give money to the WMF unless and until we're absolutely sure it's clearly allowable under UK charity law if the people we wanted least to know about it were to kick up a fuss.
- d.
On 12/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
That's not going to be its purpose, or even its secret intended purpose. Current plan is not in fact to give money to the WMF unless and until we're absolutely sure it's clearly allowable under UK charity law if the people we wanted least to know about it were to kick up a fuss.
Oh? So what is the purpose?
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
That's not going to be its purpose, or even its secret intended purpose. Current plan is not in fact to give money to the WMF unless and until we're absolutely sure it's clearly allowable under UK charity law if the people we wanted least to know about it were to kick up a fuss.
Oh? So what is the purpose?
See [[m:UK Wikimedia]] and its subpages. It boils down to "stuff that would be really good to do that would further Wikimedia projects" without money actually leaving the UK except in certain very tightly constrained circumstances.
There's actually quite a lot we can do other than send money to Florida for database servers, important though that is at present.
- d.
On 12/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
See [[m:UK Wikimedia]] and its subpages. It boils down to "stuff that would be really good to do that would further Wikimedia projects" without money actually leaving the UK except in certain very tightly constrained circumstances.
There's actually quite a lot we can do other than send money to Florida for database servers, important though that is at present.
Hmm, that was kind of what I meant. Clearly my way of expressing myself is not at its optimum after all that wine...
-- Sam
On 12/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
There's actually quite a lot we can do other than send money to Florida for database servers, important though that is at present.
That's what i'm interested in, and thanks for the suggestion of articles for politicians. (Any more can be collated at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Possible_projects_of_Wikimedia_UK .)
By the way, I'm blogging all this - as my own reflective part of my research on the UK chapter: http://www.livejournal.com/users/wikimediauk/ - if you have an issue with this, please let me know.
Cormac
On 06/12/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
That's not going to be its purpose, or even its secret intended purpose. Current plan is not in fact to give money to the WMF unless and until we're absolutely sure it's clearly allowable under UK charity law if the people we wanted least to know about it were to kick up a fuss.
Oh? So what is the purpose?
To be locally based lackeys for WMF. We don't give them money, we give them useful assistance of a form yet to be specifically determined. Also, the chapter will have headed paper and a familiar name, which has the potential for interesting applications in the door-opening line.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/6/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
My questions are, has the wikipedia foundation received advice on how it is affected by libel law in England and Wales?
The Wikimedia Foundation is not subject to the law of England or Wales (since it lacks a legal presence there), and a judgment found against the Foundation in that jurisdiction would be subject to a First Amendment analysis under United States law before enforcement might be had in the United States. Such analysis would defeat most libel judgments based on English or Welsh law, rendering them unenforceable. Furthermore, there are defenses in United States law that render the Foundation immune to defamations actions for the actions of its volunteer editors; those defenses would also be available in a hearing to determine whether to enforce a foreign judgment.
It would be advisable for the Wikimedia Foundation to avoid establishing a legal presence within the jurisdiction of countries which lack adequate protections for free speech, however.
Hmmm. Does Wikimedia have a legal presence in the European Union? If so I'd keep an eye on what the EU do with regards to proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. That could lead to Wikimedia being open to suit in England and Wales.
Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to remove it completely from the edit history?
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to remove it completely from the edit history?
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to remove it completely from the edit history?
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. Look at it this way:
* Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least within the UK. * The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is published. * By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published. * I am called an editor.
Also note the [[McLibel case]].
Those sued did not make the statements, they simply distributed them.
I would think a lawyer will make a good argument that it is possible we can be named in a suit if we have edited a page containing a libellous statement and failed to remove it.
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to remove it completely from the edit history?
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. Look at it this way:
Under US law, we aren't liable for libellous statements that are made by other people. UK law might differ, but to the extent it does that's not really all that interesting to most people on this list - the foundation is a US company (with, according to Kelly Martin, no legal presense in the UK).
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to remove it completely from the edit history?
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. Look at it this way:
Under US law, we aren't liable for libellous statements that are made by other people. UK law might differ, but to the extent it does that's not really all that interesting to most people on this list - the foundation is a US company (with, according to Kelly Martin, no legal presense in the UK).
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the "Ugly American".
The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States naturally caries certain legal implications. We all know that. That the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those implications. Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the same world as the rest of us.
Ec
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the "Ugly American".
The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States naturally caries certain legal implications. We all know that. That the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those implications. Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the same world as the rest of us.
Dude, get the chip off your shoulder already.
Kelly
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the "Ugly American".
The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States naturally caries certain legal implications. We all know that. That the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those implications. Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the same world as the rest of us.
Dude, get the chip off your shoulder already.
Didn't you write in another email in this same thread
It would be advisable for the Wikimedia Foundation to avoid establishing a legal presence within the jurisdiction of countries which lack adequate protections for free speech, however.
To rephrase an old saying about Computer Operating systems, legal protection of free speech in all countries suck, they just suck in different ways. (And then some countries don't bother with offering any protection, which sucks even more.) I think it's fair to say that the U.S. has done a better job in the past of protecting free speech than it does now; & I hope that it does a better job of it in the future. That being said, we US citizens are not in the position at the moment to start throwing stones.
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the "Ugly American".
The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States naturally caries certain legal implications. We all know that. That the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those implications. Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the same world as the rest of us.
Dude, get the chip off your shoulder already.
Didn't you write in another email in this same thread
It would be advisable for the Wikimedia Foundation to avoid establishing a legal presence within the jurisdiction of countries which lack adequate protections for free speech, however.
To rephrase an old saying about Computer Operating systems, legal protection of free speech in all countries suck, they just suck in different ways. (And then some countries don't bother with offering any protection, which sucks even more.) I think it's fair to say that the U.S. has done a better job in the past of protecting free speech than it does now; & I hope that it does a better job of it in the future. That being said, we US citizens are not in the position at the moment to start throwing stones.
I considered a direct response to Kelly, but the comment was so glib, facile and out-of-character that doing so would have served no useful purpose. On top of that, Anthony, who had inspired my outburst, already appeared to grasp where I was coming from.
Each of us is ultimately responsible for safeguarding his own free speech, even in a country where the trappings of free speech are superb. Perhaps more so when those trappings give an illusion of safety. Free speech when exercised at an unfortunate place and time can be too easily characterised as conspiracy.
Depending solely on the legal protection provided for free speech in a single country is poor strategy. In the freest country that can change with frightening rapidity. For the moment the protection provided elsewhere may appear inferior, but in certain times of crisis that will be better than nothing.
Ec
On 12/8/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Depending solely on the legal protection provided for free speech in a single country is poor strategy. In the freest country that can change with frightening rapidity. For the moment the protection provided elsewhere may appear inferior, but in certain times of crisis that will be better than nothing.
Ec
Is that what you're saying? That I should care about UK libel law because one day the US laws might get so bad that I will be forced to move to the UK? Or maybe you're saying that Wikipedia might one day be forced to do this (which is a bit more reasonable, I guess)?
I actually think the best long-term solution for Wikipedia in this regard is to move out of the reach of pretty much all jurisdictions - to go P2P. But I suppose it's possible (though extremely unlikely) that US free speech laws and precedents could change so fast to necessitate moving outside of US jurisdiction before that's possible. Still, with Wikipedia being under the GFDL we could rebuild an entire organization in a new country rather quickly if we really had to.
By the way, I think it's fairly unlikely that something like this would really become necessary in the US. Our Constitution has many weak points, but its protection of freedom of speech for educational purposes is very strong. The Supreme Court also has a long history of adhering rather tightly with the concept of stare decisis. Such radical changes to the interpretation of our Constitution *usually* take place over a long time span.
Anthony
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this.
Under US law, we aren't liable for libellous statements that are made by other people. UK law might differ, but to the extent it does that's not really all that interesting to most people on this list - the foundation is a US company (with, according to Kelly Martin, no legal presense in the UK).
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the "Ugly American".
Sorry. I think I misunderstood the question. I thought the "we" in the question was Wikipedia. But looking at it again, the concern seemed to be more over the individual editors, so the "we" was probably supposed to refer to individual UK citizens.
I hope you're not offended by the fact that I'm not interested in this. I have enough trouble just keeping myself informed on the laws of Florida and the United States. (Incidently, I was thinking about starting a wikibook on US laws from a perspective of laws that everyone living or visiting here should know: free speech, search and seizure, copyright, the uniform commercial code, self defense and excessive use of force, etc. Anyone else interested in this?)
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this.
Under US law, we aren't liable for libellous statements that are made by other people. UK law might differ, but to the extent it does that's not really all that interesting to most people on this list - the foundation is a US company (with, according to Kelly Martin, no legal presense in the UK).
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the "Ugly American".
Sorry. I think I misunderstood the question. I thought the "we" in the question was Wikipedia. But looking at it again, the concern seemed to be more over the individual editors, so the "we" was probably supposed to refer to individual UK citizens.
The problem related more to "most people on this list" rather than "we". I think that my point was made and understood; this is not a horse that runs well if it's flogged too much.
I hope you're not offended by the fact that I'm not interested in this.
What you may or may not be personally interested in is not a problem. It's perfectly normal for anyone to be interested in the laws of his own country, and citizens of other countries will have concerns about how they are affected by US law
I have enough trouble just keeping myself informed on the laws of Florida and the United States.
Absolutely.
(Incidently, I was thinking about starting a wikibook on US laws from a perspective of laws that everyone living or visiting here should know: free speech, search and seizure, copyright, the uniform commercial code, self defense and excessive use of force, etc. Anyone else interested in this?)
Interesting, and probably useful. I have briefly thought of a Wikibook on comparative copyrights, but am easily discouraged when I think of how much work is involved. I already have plenty to do.
Ec
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this.
Under US law, we aren't liable for libellous statements that are made by other people. UK law might differ, but to the extent it does that's not really all that interesting to most people on this list - the foundation is a US company (with, according to Kelly Martin, no legal presense in the UK).
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the "Ugly American".
Sorry. I think I misunderstood the question. I thought the "we" in the question was Wikipedia. But looking at it again, the concern seemed to be more over the individual editors, so the "we" was probably supposed to refer to individual UK citizens.
The problem related more to "most people on this list" rather than "we". I think that my point was made and understood; this is not a horse that runs well if it's flogged too much.
So, you think most people on this list *do* care about UK libel law? If you'd like you can reply to me privately instead of publically, but I'd really like to know what it is that I said that you took offense to. Is it the attitude that I don't care? Is it the attitude that I think most others don't care? Maybe it's the fact that I assume most people on this list aren't from the UK? I really don't understand.
I hope you're not offended by the fact that I'm not interested in this.
What you may or may not be personally interested in is not a problem. It's perfectly normal for anyone to be interested in the laws of his own country, and citizens of other countries will have concerns about how they are affected by US law
But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?
I really don't understand what you're taking offense to. In hindsight, I shouldn't have said anything, because the question wasn't directed at me in the first place (that was the confusion over who "we" was referring to). But that was an honest mistake, I thought the question was related at least in part to things concerning the English Wikipedia as a whole (considering that that's what this mailing list is about, is it really such a horrible assumption?).
Anthony
G'day Anthony,
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What you may or may not be personally interested in is not a problem. It's perfectly normal for anyone to be interested in the laws of his own country, and citizens of other countries will have concerns about how they are affected by US law
But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?
*I* don't live in the UK (I'm a fan of sunshine, thankyou), but I *am* interested in British law. Your logical expressions need work.
Also: stop digging. *Please*. Ray took something you said the wrong way; the stupidest thing you could do as a result is to argue for the sake of arguing and convince him he was right.
Cheers,
On 8 Dec 2005, at 11:28, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?
Actually (ignoring the rest of this thread), UK libel law is probably the most important in the world, mainly because it is so bad and you can choose your jurisdiction. Cases have been heard where Americans sue Americans about libels in US publications just because a few copies reached the UK. For many years the UK was the only place any major libel cases were heard (in the days of [[Peter Carter-Ruck]]), as you could get serious damages and it was very much slanted in your favour. It has changed a bit now. The main thing was you didnt have to prove damages, unlike in the US; you would get a notional (often large but once famously a penny) amount of damages for loss of reputation.
Justinc
On 12/8/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005, at 11:28, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?
Actually (ignoring the rest of this thread), UK libel law is probably the most important in the world, mainly because it is so bad and you can choose your jurisdiction. Cases have been heard where Americans sue Americans about libels in US publications just because a few copies reached the UK. For many years the UK was the only place any major libel cases were heard (in the days of [[Peter Carter-Ruck]]), as you could get serious damages and it was very much slanted in your favour. It has changed a bit now. The main thing was you didnt have to prove damages, unlike in the US; you would get a notional (often large but once famously a penny) amount of damages for loss of reputation.
Justinc
I think I'll wait to worry about this until I have a big enough presense in the UK that a ruling against me would matter. The UK can't garnish wages from my US employer, can they?
(Actually, at the point where I have significant assets in the UK I'll be able to afford a lawyer to research these issues for me. I certainly won't ask around on an international mailing list which has pretty much nothing to do with law.)
As far as Wikipedia goes, once again, it's my understanding that the foundation doesn't have any significant assets in the UK. This means a UK ruling against it would be pretty much meaningless (other than taking that country out of the running for Wikimania anyway), right?
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/8/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005, at 11:28, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?
Actually (ignoring the rest of this thread), UK libel law is probably the most important in the world, mainly because it is so bad and you can choose your jurisdiction. Cases have been heard where Americans sue Americans about libels in US publications just because a few copies reached the UK. For many years the UK was the only place any major libel cases were heard (in the days of [[Peter Carter-Ruck]]), as you could get serious damages and it was very much slanted in your favour. It has changed a bit now. The main thing was you didnt have to prove damages, unlike in the US; you would get a notional (often large but once famously a penny) amount of damages for loss of reputation.
Justinc
I think I'll wait to worry about this until I have a big enough presense in the UK that a ruling against me would matter. The UK can't garnish wages from my US employer, can they?
(Actually, at the point where I have significant assets in the UK I'll be able to afford a lawyer to research these issues for me. I certainly won't ask around on an international mailing list which has pretty much nothing to do with law.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the mailing list for the english Wikipedia, yes? So the point of asking is to try to work out what the policy is on that Wikipedia regarding libel. Great, you personally aren't affected. Does that absolve you of responsibility in attempting to formulate an understanding of the position to those it does affect and also to try and develop a policy on the situation? If you personally are unaffected, I'm very happy for you. Perhaps you could be sympathetic and at least understand the concerns of those that may be.
On 12/8/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I think I'll wait to worry about this until I have a big enough presense in the UK that a ruling against me would matter. The UK can't garnish wages from my US employer, can they?
(Actually, at the point where I have significant assets in the UK I'll be able to afford a lawyer to research these issues for me. I certainly won't ask around on an international mailing list which has pretty much nothing to do with law.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the mailing list for the english Wikipedia, yes? So the point of asking is to try to work out what the policy is on that Wikipedia regarding libel. Great, you personally aren't affected. Does that absolve you of responsibility in attempting to formulate an understanding of the position to those it does affect and also to try and develop a policy on the situation? If you personally are unaffected, I'm very happy for you. Perhaps you could be sympathetic and at least understand the concerns of those that may be.
Libel, at least so far as it consists of false information, has no place in Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with UK law, though. If we're talking about true information, then I'd argue that Wikipedia *should not* bow down to the UK or any other legal authority if there is any possible way for it to avoid coming into their jurisdiction.
If use of the seven dirty words is illegal in Pennsylvania, should Wikipedia develop a policy around that situation? I think we can all agree that it absolutely should not.
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to think that the UK government is going to give judgements against people simply for editing a page in a section completely unrelated to libellous content. But if they do, what can we do about it? Well, what can we do about Chinese citizens who can't legally contribute to the encyclopedia? We can facilitate anonymous contributions and make sure we don't put any significant amount of assets in that country, not much else.
If the country you live in goes nuts, I'd suggest you start contributing to the encyclopedia anonymously. There's not much else you can do.
Let's bring back the ability for at least some of us to contribute to Wikipedia using the Tor network. That's at least one policy change we should make.
Anthony
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to think that the UK government is going to give judgements against people simply for editing a page in a section completely unrelated to libellous content
I may be confused here, but I was under the impression we were discussing being sued _in a UK court_, not _by the UK government_. Very different things; HMG really doesn't give a damn about us and is very unlikely to unless we do something insanely stupid like publish Vanguard patrol details.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 12/8/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to think that the UK government is going to give judgements against people simply for editing a page in a section completely unrelated to libellous content
I may be confused here, but I was under the impression we were discussing being sued _in a UK court_, not _by the UK government_. Very different things; HMG really doesn't give a damn about us and is very unlikely to unless we do something insanely stupid like publish Vanguard patrol details.
Read what I said again, noting the word "judgements". Judgements are given by courts, and courts are part of the government.
"Anthony DiPierro" wikilegal@inbox.org wrote: [snip]
Read what I said again, noting the word "judgements". Judgements are given by courts, and courts are part of the government.
Not in the UK. Great care is (or at least should be) taken to ensure that the Judiciary is independent of the Government.
Sometimes this works a treat, like when the Judges tell Ministers that their latest publicity-seeking policy is cobblers.
Sometimes it's not so great, like when a Judge gets a bee in his (usually, although there are some mad female Judges also :-) bonnet about something and goes on a bit of a rampage.
It'll all balance out in the end, I expect...
On 12/8/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Anthony DiPierro" wikilegal@inbox.org wrote: [snip]
Read what I said again, noting the word "judgements". Judgements are given by courts, and courts are part of the government.
Not in the UK. Great care is (or at least should be) taken to ensure that the Judiciary is independent of the Government.
Ah. Thanks for pointing that out. It's really just a miscommunication. Here in the US our Judiciary is largely independent of the Legislature and the Executive, but the three collectively are referred to as the "government".
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/8/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to think that the UK government is going to give judgements against people simply for editing a page in a section completely unrelated to libellous content
I may be confused here, but I was under the impression we were discussing being sued _in a UK court_, not _by the UK government_. Very different things; HMG really doesn't give a damn about us and is very unlikely to unless we do something insanely stupid like publish Vanguard patrol details.
Read what I said again, noting the word "judgements". Judgements are given by courts, and courts are part of the government.
True enough to a point, but now you're questioning the concept of judicial independance. No court wants to be considered a paet of government. Even accepting your premise there can be no judgement unless there is a complaint. I read Andrew's comment as referring to the initial prosecution of a case as being done by private persons.
Ec
On 12/9/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
True enough to a point, but now you're questioning the concept of judicial independance. No court wants to be considered a paet of government. Even accepting your premise there can be no judgement unless there is a complaint. I read Andrew's comment as referring to the initial prosecution of a case as being done by private persons.
Ec
As was mentioned in some other posts, this was just a language issue. In American English, the word "government" means something different from British English.
G'day Andrew,
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to think that the UK government is going to give judgements against people simply for editing a page in a section completely unrelated to libellous content
I may be confused here, but I was under the impression we were discussing being sued _in a UK court_, not _by the UK government_. Very different things; HMG really doesn't give a damn about us and is very unlikely to unless we do something insanely stupid like publish Vanguard patrol details.
You forget, Anthony's American. Americans don't realise that the UK (or, indeed, any Western country) is a democracy with separation of powers and everything.
Did you know that the Queen personally presides over all criminal cases, and the accused gets no rights? After trial she heads 'round to a randomly-chosen subject's house (that's right, subject; there are no "citizens" in the Commonwealth), and forces one unlucky couple to provide her with tea and crumpets for an hour, while her dogs climb over all the furniture. Then she rides atop a double-decker bus all the way home to Buckinham Palace, and if the men she passes en route don't tip their fashionable black bowler hats, they are roundly whipped.
Americans: this is true. That's why so many Englishmen (not British people; all UKers are English) try to sneak into the country across the barrier between the USA and Canada.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
I may be confused here, but I was under the impression we were discussing being sued _in a UK court_, not _by the UK government_. Very different things; HMG really doesn't give a damn about us and is very unlikely to unless we do something insanely stupid like publish Vanguard patrol details.
You forget, Anthony's American. Americans don't realise that the UK (or, indeed, any Western country) is a democracy with separation of powers and everything.
No, we simply own dictionaries (including your very own OED!) which properly point out that the word "government" has multiple meanings. One of them is, in Parliamentary systems, a collective term for the current ruling coalition and their attendant services, agencies, and whatnot, as in "the government lost a vote of no confidence". Another one is, much more generally, a collective term for the apparatus of the state, as in "Myanmar has an authoritarian government", or "the UK's system of government is constitutional monarchy".
-Mark
G'day Anthony,
Libel, at least so far as it consists of false information, has no place in Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with UK law, though. If we're talking about true information, then I'd argue that Wikipedia *should not* bow down to the UK or any other legal authority if there is any possible way for it to avoid coming into their jurisdiction.
On the other hand, we shouldn't publish stuff just because it's true, either (this is the cue for the "you deletionist vandal!" crowd to start making a ruckus on this issue, too). In Australia, one can defend against a defamation suit if a) the information is true, *and* b) it's in the public interest for the information to be published.
Truth in an of itself is not a defence, neither is "important if true". This additional burden presumably makes Australian law as nightmarish and evil as UK law (they hate freedom!), but is something I think it would do us no harm to heed. We should not be publishing defamatory information just because it's true, even if we really really dislike the subject. The truth of a statement is not sufficient for its inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
(Admittedly, WP:NOR can cover most instances of this, since if the information is verifiable, someone else will have already made the call).
If use of the seven dirty words is illegal in Pennsylvania, should Wikipedia develop a policy around that situation? I think we can all agree that it absolutely should not.
Good point.
<snip />
Cheers,
On 12/8/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Anthony,
Libel, at least so far as it consists of false information, has no place in Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with UK law, though. If we're talking about true information, then I'd argue that Wikipedia *should not* bow down to the UK or any other legal authority if there is any possible way for it to avoid coming into their jurisdiction.
On the other hand, we shouldn't publish stuff just because it's true, either (this is the cue for the "you deletionist vandal!" crowd to start making a ruckus on this issue, too). In Australia, one can defend against a defamation suit if a) the information is true, *and* b) it's in the public interest for the information to be published.
Truth in an of itself is not a defence, neither is "important if true". This additional burden presumably makes Australian law as nightmarish and evil as UK law (they hate freedom!), but is something I think it would do us no harm to heed. We should not be publishing defamatory information just because it's true, even if we really really dislike the subject. The truth of a statement is not sufficient for its inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
(Admittedly, WP:NOR can cover most instances of this, since if the information is verifiable, someone else will have already made the call).
If use of the seven dirty words is illegal in Pennsylvania, should Wikipedia develop a policy around that situation? I think we can all agree that it absolutely should not.
Good point.
<snip />
Cheers,
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
No, we shouldn't publish it simply because it's true. Actually, "we" shouldn't publish anything. We should provide the servers to allow others to publish things.
Anyway, you seem to be getting into privacy issues with part b). I think our policy of no original research should be enough to avoid any problems there. If it's already been published by some other respectable source, then we should include it in the encyclopedia. If it hasn't, then we shouldn't. Again, this really has nothing to do with laws, but fortunately it means we would be in compliance with the laws of most of the world. If you can think of a situation where this isn't the case, maybe you could change my mind there, though.
Steve Block wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the mailing list for the english Wikipedia, yes? So the point of asking is to try to work out what the policy is on that Wikipedia regarding libel. Great, you personally aren't affected. Does that absolve you of responsibility in attempting to formulate an understanding of the position to those it does affect and also to try and develop a policy on the situation? If you personally are unaffected, I'm very happy for you. Perhaps you could be sympathetic and at least understand the concerns of those that may be.
The problem is that we cannot base sensible policies by starting with the most restrictive cases, even in the English-speaking world, if our goal is maximal openness. Singapore is largely English-speaking too, for example, and I don't see anybody suggesting we ought to pay more attention to their laws on publishing (which are fairly extensive).
-Mark
On 12/8/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Actually (ignoring the rest of this thread), UK libel law is probably the most important in the world, mainly because it is so bad and you can choose your jurisdiction. Cases have been heard where Americans sue Americans about libels in US publications just because a few copies reached the UK. For many years the UK was the only place any major libel cases were heard (in the days of [[Peter Carter-Ruck]]), as you could get serious damages and it was very much slanted in your favour. It has changed a bit now. The main thing was you didnt have to prove damages, unlike in the US; you would get a notional (often large but once famously a penny) amount of damages for loss of reputation.
This is tempered by the fact that UK libel law is so bad that most other countries will not enforce a UK libel judgment.
Kelly
On 08/12/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
your favour. It has changed a bit now. The main thing was you didnt have to prove damages, unlike in the US; you would get a notional (often large but once famously a penny) amount of damages for loss of reputation.
This is tempered by the fact that UK libel law is so bad that most other countries will not enforce a UK libel judgment.
[shrug] Our editor who lost still has a £250,000 outstanding judgement preventing them from ever entering the UK on pain of Nasty Legal Consequences. If the Foundation gets hit, well, there might be fun problems if we happen to have set up squids in London, being as they would be seizable property...
It may not be a killer to anything, but it's not going to be pleasant nor is it going to be the sort of thing the Foundation's PR will do well out of.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Andrew Gray wrote:
[shrug] Our editor who lost still has a £250,000 outstanding judgement preventing them from ever entering the UK on pain of Nasty Legal Consequences. If the Foundation gets hit, well, there might be fun problems if we happen to have set up squids in London, being as they would be seizable property...
All the more reason to divide assets among different jurisdictions, and support the autonomy of national chapters.
It may not be a killer to anything, but it's not going to be pleasant nor is it going to be the sort of thing the Foundation's PR will do well out of.
No amount of PR would have helped McDonald's in the McLibel case even though they won in court.
Ec
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005, at 11:28, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?
Actually (ignoring the rest of this thread), UK libel law is probably the most important in the world, mainly because it is so bad and you can choose your jurisdiction. Cases have been heard where Americans sue Americans about libels in US publications just because a few copies reached the UK.
This is one of the points I'm trying to make. Since Don King sued a US lawyer in the UK courts, what is to stop someone suing a US editor in the UK courts? I believe the foundation has satisfied itself Wikipedia is immune from Englandf and Wales libel law, but I think it is important to establish the position to individual editors.
I mean, taking it a step further, although Wikimedia may be exempt from a writ in the UK courts, if one was to aimed at Wikimedia from the UK courts with editors named on the suit, the best recourse from my reading of the law is that courts allow a full apology, retraction and some sort of small financial settlement rather than have a lawsuit. Would Wikimedia be happy to comply with that even though it is likely exempt from the suit itself?
Basically, I am asking whether the policy is shoot libel on sight.
On 12/8/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Justin Cormack wrote: This is one of the points I'm trying to make. Since Don King sued a US lawyer in the UK courts, what is to stop someone suing a US editor in the UK courts? I believe the foundation has satisfied itself Wikipedia is immune from Englandf and Wales libel law, but I think it is important to establish the position to individual editors.
Nothing stops you from suing a US editor in UK courts. You will probably have problems with jurisdiction (a domicilary of the United States is not subject to the personal jurisdiction of a UK court even under very broad long-arm principles, although this doctrine has been become rather disheveled of late) and with service of process, and even if you obtain a judgment you will have problems enforcing it against the US editor since the US will not enforce a UK libel judgment without basically retrying the case under US law.
The largest risk, IMO, is to domicilaries and subjects of the United Kingdom, who are subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Queen's courts and may reasonably expect to be held responsible for their actions in those courts. The rest of us (unless we own property in the United Kingdom or otherwise have ties there) can probably safely ignore UK libel law. In general, an editor of Wikipedia must exercise caution to avoid violating local laws regarding speech, or be prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions under those laws. (Which really sucks for people living under oppressive regimes, but there's only so much we can do for them.)
I mean, taking it a step further, although Wikimedia may be exempt from a writ in the UK courts, if one was to aimed at Wikimedia from the UK courts with editors named on the suit, the best recourse from my reading of the law is that courts allow a full apology, retraction and some sort of small financial settlement rather than have a lawsuit. Would Wikimedia be happy to comply with that even though it is likely exempt from the suit itself?
The Wikimedia Foundation would be foolish to do anything other than seek to have itself dismissed from any such action. I do not expect the WMF to act as a liability insurer for its volunteer editors.
Basically, I am asking whether the policy is shoot libel on sight.
Libels should be removed as soon as they are discovered.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/8/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Basically, I am asking whether the policy is shoot libel on sight.
Libels should be removed as soon as they are discovered.
The next question, obviously, is which country's definition of libel do we use?
On 12/9/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/8/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Basically, I am asking whether the policy is shoot libel on sight.
Libels should be removed as soon as they are discovered.
The next question, obviously, is which country's definition of libel do we use?
Untrue statements should be removed.
True statements which do not add encyclopedia value should be removed.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/9/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/8/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Basically, I am asking whether the policy is shoot libel on sight.
Libels should be removed as soon as they are discovered.
The next question, obviously, is which country's definition of libel do we use?
Untrue statements should be removed.
True statements which do not add encyclopedia value should be removed.
Okay. You mentioned also that we shouldn't have guidelines on libel on Wikipedia. I already added those in a proposal at [[Wikipedia:Libel]]. Should they be removed?
Steve Block wrote:
Untrue statements should be removed.
True statements which do not add encyclopedia value should be removed.
Okay. You mentioned also that we shouldn't have guidelines on libel on Wikipedia. I already added those in a proposal at [[Wikipedia:Libel]]. Should they be removed?
These two guidelines in particular have nothing to do with libel---they are simply guidelines for writing a quality encyclopedia article. It's not as if the reason we don't want untrue or unencyclopedic statements is because we're afraid of being sued for libel. Rather, it is because we want to write good encyclopedia articles.
-Mark
Has Wikipedia ever got professional legal advice? A lot of the legal analysis I hear on WP seems to be amateur interpretation of statutes, or comments by people who say they are lawyers but who, because of their anonymous status, may not be, or who may be undergraduate legal students.
I know it would be costly, but I think recent cases, plus issues over images other issues, are IMHO crying out of absolutely professional legal advice. It may well already have received it, but much of the commentary on WP doesn't show evidence of it. We need to be 100% certain of the legality of our actions in all cases. We cannot risk finding that, quite innocently, that we are breaking one or more laws and face the threat of large fines or even an injunction closing us down.
Far smaller publications than WP have lawyers check things all the time. If we don't already have full legal advice available it is VITAL that we get it. It would be irresponsible to run an entity like WP and not have it.
Thom
--------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
The problem as I see it is that the Wikimedia Foundation might not want to appear to be passing out legal advice to our contributors ...
-Matt
On 09/12/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The problem as I see it is that the Wikimedia Foundation might not want to appear to be passing out legal advice to our contributors ...
Indeed. The WMF takes legal advice when it feels the need to take advice, as I understand it; when an active legal issue arises where we're doing something particularly wrong, Things Get Done With Emphasis, Underlined, In Parentheses And Quotated.
(or something like that)
Recall, for example, the missing-articles-in-Britannica list deletions...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 09/12/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The problem as I see it is that the Wikimedia Foundation might not want to appear to be passing out legal advice to our contributors ...
Indeed. The WMF takes legal advice when it feels the need to take advice, as I understand it; when an active legal issue arises where we're doing something particularly wrong, Things Get Done With Emphasis, Underlined, In Parentheses And Quotated.
(or something like that)
Recall, for example, the missing-articles-in-Britannica list deletions...
Yes, I recall it, and if I recall correctly legal opinion was divided.
Ec
A good lawyer can lay out convincing arguments for both sides of any proposition.
Fred
On Dec 10, 2005, at 1:09 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 09/12/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The problem as I see it is that the Wikimedia Foundation might not want to appear to be passing out legal advice to our contributors ...
Indeed. The WMF takes legal advice when it feels the need to take advice, as I understand it; when an active legal issue arises where we're doing something particularly wrong, Things Get Done With Emphasis, Underlined, In Parentheses And Quotated.
(or something like that)
Recall, for example, the missing-articles-in-Britannica list deletions...
Yes, I recall it, and if I recall correctly legal opinion was divided.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
True Fred. But it is invaluable in terms of media handling of the storyIff a journalist asks Jimbo whether WP has received full legal advice on his actions and he says "yes. And we have been careful to follow it. But different lawyers have different interpretations of the relevant statutes" then the result is one kind of story - "Wikipedia is legal grey area".
If however Jimbo was to say "no", going by Ray's perspective on things, then the next day you'd have a whole new, big story "Wikipedia never checked law" which would, as we media types say, 'give the story new legs'. It would be a absolute disaster for WP and would see people pissed off by WP rushing to their own lawyers to try to see could they find some reason to sue.
Not getting legal advice, even if the result was ambiguous, and then having to admit you hadn't done so, would quite simply be suicide for Wikipedia. Ray may not grasp that (yes another example of the niavety and foolishness that got us into this mess) but Jimbo as a successful businessman no doubt does. I also hope that Jimbo is getting professional media advice. Talking to the press without media training, as anyone who either works in the media or in careers that brings them in contact with the media, is chronic stupidity. One wrong phrase in an interview could do WP terminal damage if then quoted worldwide. Every word has to be carefully measured, and all interviews have to be 'on message' with nothing left to chance.
Thom
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: A good lawyer can lay out convincing arguments for both sides of any proposition.
Fred
On Dec 10, 2005, at 1:09 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 09/12/05, Matt Brown wrote:
The problem as I see it is that the Wikimedia Foundation might not want to appear to be passing out legal advice to our contributors ...
Indeed. The WMF takes legal advice when it feels the need to take advice, as I understand it; when an active legal issue arises where we're doing something particularly wrong, Things Get Done With Emphasis, Underlined, In Parentheses And Quotated.
(or something like that)
Recall, for example, the missing-articles-in-Britannica list deletions...
Yes, I recall it, and if I recall correctly legal opinion was divided.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online search now ---------------------------------
Good public relations and being legally correct don't really have much of a correlation other than by accident. I think it's more important for the press that we do what we think is right and that we explain why we're doing it, not that we got some <s>slimy</s> lawyer to sign off on things first.
For legal advice to be useful, the lawyer giving the advice would have to take responsibility for getting things wrong, and I'm sure it's hard to find someone willing to do that for very cheap. Outside of that, lawyers can point to the laws themselves and how they were interpreted by particular courts and not much else. This is something that anyone can do, though a good lawyer working in that field would likely point to a broader range of relevant information than a law student or other non-lawyer (or a lawyer who doesn't work in that field, who quite likely might not know any more than a non-lawyer who does work in that field).
In some cases the legal protections offered by relying on legal advice might be worth it. But, in general, managment usually has to make a lot of decisions on their own.
Anthony
On 12/9/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The problem as I see it is that the Wikimedia Foundation might not want to appear to be passing out legal advice to our contributors ...
Indeed, it should not do so, since doing so would create liability.
Remember, never take legal advice from someone who is not your lawyer.
Kelly
On 12/9/05, Tom Cadden thomcadden@yahoo.ie wrote:
Has Wikipedia ever got professional legal advice? A lot of the legal analysis I hear on WP seems to be amateur interpretation of statutes, or comments by people who say they are lawyers but who, because of their anonymous status, may not be, or who may be undergraduate legal students.
Wikimedia does have legal advice. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_department for a list of lawyers who are volunteering to help us. All are subscribers to a closed mailing list where foundation legal issues can be discussed, and to which anyone is free to post. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Juriwiki_mailing_list for details.
Angela.
Tom Cadden wrote:
Has Wikipedia ever got professional legal advice? A lot of the legal analysis I hear on WP seems to be amateur interpretation of statutes, or comments by people who say they are lawyers but who, because of their anonymous status, may not be, or who may be undergraduate legal students.
I'll never understan how people who willing to challenge received wisdom still manage to fall on their knees before lawuers.
I know it would be costly, but I think recent cases, plus issues over images other issues, are IMHO crying out of absolutely professional legal advice. It may well already have received it, but much of the commentary on WP doesn't show evidence of it. We need to be 100% certain of the legality of our actions in all cases. We cannot risk finding that, quite innocently, that we are breaking one or more laws and face the threat of large fines or even an injunction closing us down.
There is no such thing as 100% certainty! When it comes to court judgement they only serve to prove that 50% of lawyers are wrong.
Far smaller publications than WP have lawyers check things all the time. If we don't already have full legal advice available it is VITAL that we get it. It would be irresponsible to run an entity like WP and not have it.
We are dealing with a conflicting patchword of international laws. Judgements have also been in conflict. We'll get a lot further ahead with a common sense approach to law. This requires a balance between overly agressive and pusilanimous interpretations.
Ec
Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com schrieb/wrote:
Nothing stops you from suing a US editor in UK courts.
Even worse, noting stops you from suing a US editor in US courts for infringment of UK laws, especially UK IP laws. A US judgment based on UK substantive law can easily be enforced in the US.
Claus
On 09 Dec 2005 16:48:00 +0100, Claus Färber claus@xn--frber-gra.muc.de wrote:
Even worse, noting stops you from suing a US editor in US courts for infringment of UK laws, especially UK IP laws. A US judgment based on UK substantive law can easily be enforced in the US.
Indeed, US courts will enforce UK law, except when such enforcement violates US law. That's why we don't enforce UK libel judgments; doing so would violate our Constitution. UK judgments of some other nature, those we'll enforce.
Kelly
On 09 Dec 2005 16:48:00 +0100, Claus Färber claus@xn--frber-gra.muc.de wrote:
Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com schrieb/wrote:
Nothing stops you from suing a US editor in UK courts.
Even worse, noting stops you from suing a US editor in US courts for infringment of UK laws, especially UK IP laws. A US judgment based on UK substantive law can easily be enforced in the US.
The First Amendment certainly stops you from suing a US editor in US courts for violating unconstitutional UK laws.
US IP laws already cover pretty much everything they constitutionally can (some would argue and beyond that).
Anthony
Steve Block wrote:
I mean, taking it a step further, although Wikimedia may be exempt from a writ in the UK courts, if one was to aimed at Wikimedia from the UK courts with editors named on the suit, the best recourse from my reading of the law is that courts allow a full apology, retraction and some sort of small financial settlement rather than have a lawsuit. Would Wikimedia be happy to comply with that even though it is likely exempt from the suit itself?
Apologies and retractions from whom? If I make an alegedly libellous statement Wikimedia the mechanisms are certainly there to remove such statements from the site, but that doesn't mean that I have personally apologized or retracted or agreed to an out of court financial settlement. It can only speak on behalf of the organization as a whole.
Basically, I am asking whether the policy is shoot libel on sight.
That's an over-generalization. It may not be clear that a particular statement is libelous.
Ec
On 08/12/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005, at 11:28, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?
Actually (ignoring the rest of this thread), UK libel law is probably the most important in the world, mainly because it is so bad and you can choose your jurisdiction. Cases have been heard where Americans sue Americans about libels in US publications just because a few copies reached the UK.
Basically, in the eyes of the UK court system, what needs to happen is that something is published in the UK, and that it can be defaming to someone with standing in the UK.
"Published" has been construed to mean "made available to be read by a third party" - the classic example is that sending a letter in an envelope isn't publishing, since there's one recipient, but sending a postcard is, since the postman can read it... the logical extension of this is that something published on a server in Thailand by a guy in Kenya can be grounds for someone in Cuba to sue, if someone in London reads it even once, but this (thankfully) has not been ruled on by a court as yet. At least, I don't *think* it has, but IIRC there's an Australian court that did something similar.
Standing means that someone has to, basically, have a public status which can be damaged by the defamation. This is tricky for J. Random Crank, but - for example - the Norwegian politician who we were discussing a week ago, he'd have ground to sue, since people have presumably heard of him and have some respect for him.
For many years the UK was the only place any major libel cases were heard (in the days of [[Peter Carter-Ruck]]), as you could get serious damages and it was very much slanted in your favour. It has changed a bit now. The main thing was you didnt have to prove damages, unlike in the US; you would get a notional (often large but once famously a penny) amount of damages for loss of reputation.
Of course, the problem is that people like Carter-Ruck came very expensive, so the costs the defendant would have to pay were *immense*. (This is not helped by the recent spate of "conditional fee arrangements", where they add on another 50% charge for winning)
At this point, stop and meditate on the remarkable fact that Private Eye still exists.
It's not something to horribly worry about, but it's not something that can be assumed to be irrelevant either. At least, not yet...
(This is from memory, but I can drag out /Law for Journalists/ and start summarising if people want)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 08/12/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005, at 11:28, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
But it's wrong to point out that most people on this list don't live in the UK, and therefore don't care about UK libel law?
Actually (ignoring the rest of this thread), UK libel law is probably the most important in the world, mainly because it is so bad and you can choose your jurisdiction. Cases have been heard where Americans sue Americans about libels in US publications just because a few copies reached the UK.
Basically, in the eyes of the UK court system, what needs to happen is that something is published in the UK, and that it can be defaming to someone with standing in the UK.
"Published" has been construed to mean "made available to be read by a third party" - the classic example is that sending a letter in an envelope isn't publishing, since there's one recipient, but sending a postcard is, since the postman can read it... the logical extension of this is that something published on a server in Thailand by a guy in Kenya can be grounds for someone in Cuba to sue, if someone in London reads it even once, but this (thankfully) has not been ruled on by a court as yet. At least, I don't *think* it has, but IIRC there's an Australian court that did something similar.
Didn't the Lennox Lewis & ors v. Don King make exactly this point? That even though the comments were made on American websites, they were downloadable in the UK, and so had been published here.
Steve Block wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
Basically, in the eyes of the UK court system, what needs to happen is that something is published in the UK, and that it can be defaming to someone with standing in the UK.
"Published" has been construed to mean "made available to be read by a third party" - the classic example is that sending a letter in an envelope isn't publishing, since there's one recipient, but sending a postcard is, since the postman can read it... the logical extension of this is that something published on a server in Thailand by a guy in Kenya can be grounds for someone in Cuba to sue, if someone in London reads it even once, but this (thankfully) has not been ruled on by a court as yet. At least, I don't *think* it has, but IIRC there's an Australian court that did something similar.
Didn't the Lennox Lewis & ors v. Don King make exactly this point? That even though the comments were made on American websites, they were downloadable in the UK, and so had been published here.
There have been similar rulings on that point, but relating to copyrights instead of libel, in both Australian and Canadian courts.
Ec
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States naturally caries certain legal implications. We all know that. That the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those implications. Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the same world as the rest of us.
However, I suspect that content producers and publishers would convincingly argue that in the matter of libel law, the United Kingdom is very much inferior, to the extent that British libel law is an effective restraint on all kinds of free speech that are legal in much of the rest of the world.
Of course, those who are frequently written about might disagree.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States naturally carries certain legal implications. We all know that. That the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those implications. Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the same world as the rest of us.
However, I suspect that content producers and publishers would convincingly argue that in the matter of libel law, the United Kingdom is very much inferior, to the extent that British libel law is an effective restraint on all kinds of free speech that are legal in much of the rest of the world.
Of course, those who are frequently written about might disagree.
Just because I was given the incentive to be critical of United States attitudes doesn't mean that I would not take advantage of a similar opportunity to be critical of the United Kingdom. After all, whatever hypocrisy that we might now see emanating from the United States reflects a well learned lesson from its colonial past. When it comes to criticising government the United Kingdom still maintains a draconian Official Secrets Act to make it clear that speech is only as free as government wants it to be.
Ec
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to remove it completely from the edit history?
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. Look at it this way:
Under US law, we aren't liable for libellous statements that are made by other people. UK law might differ, but to the extent it does that's not really all that interesting to most people on this list - the foundation is a US company (with, according to Kelly Martin, no legal presense in the UK).
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the "Ugly American".
The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States naturally caries certain legal implications. We all know that. That the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those implications. Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the same world as the rest of us.
Ec
The UK situation is pretty simple. Don't try and use truth as a defence except as a last resort and watch out for inciteing racial hatred laws.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to remove it completely from the edit history?
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. Look at it this way:
Under US law, we aren't liable for libellous statements that are made by other people. UK law might differ, but to the extent it does that's not really all that interesting to most people on this list - the foundation is a US company (with, according to Kelly Martin, no legal presense in the UK).
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the "Ugly American".
The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States naturally caries certain legal implications. We all know that. That the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those implications. Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the same world as the rest of us,
The UK situation is pretty simple. Don't try and use truth as a defence except as a last resort and watch out for inciteing racial hatred laws.
Canada has had it's own problems on that one. Most of it is a product of Jewish overreaction to nut cases like Ernst Zundel. When David Ahenakew went onto his questionable rant on a single occasion, persecuting him in court went well over the top.
Ec
G'day Ray,
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. Look at it this way:
Under US law, we aren't liable for libellous statements that are made by other people. UK law might differ, but to the extent it does that's not really all that interesting to most people on this list - the foundation is a US company (with, according to Kelly Martin, no legal presense in the UK).
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the "Ugly American".
While I'm behind you 100% on the "America is not the world!" position (heck, earlier I was getting irritated at the US-centricism of [[Safety orange]], for cryin' out loud), I don't think Anthony meant what you think he meant. You (presumably) read it as "UK law is not worth talking about unless you're English, and we're American", while Anthony (presumably) meant it as "the servers are in Florida, so US law is what we *really* need to worry about".
I agree that it wasn't phrased as well as it could have been, but this isn't the time to start complaining about US-centricism, and Anthony isn't the person to rant at (yet).
The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States naturally caries certain legal implications. We all know that. That the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those implications. Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the same world as the rest of us.
Everything in the para above, except the clause about "bushshit", was perfect. Hurrah!
Cheers,
On 12/8/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Ray,
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. Look at it this way:
Under US law, we aren't liable for libellous statements that are made by other people. UK law might differ, but to the extent it does that's not really all that interesting to most people on this list - the foundation is a US company (with, according to Kelly Martin, no legal presense in the UK).
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the "Ugly American".
While I'm behind you 100% on the "America is not the world!" position (heck, earlier I was getting irritated at the US-centricism of [[Safety orange]], for cryin' out loud), I don't think Anthony meant what you think he meant. You (presumably) read it as "UK law is not worth talking about unless you're English, and we're American", while Anthony (presumably) meant it as "the servers are in Florida, so US law is what we *really* need to worry about".
I agree that it wasn't phrased as well as it could have been, but this isn't the time to start complaining about US-centricism, and Anthony isn't the person to rant at (yet).
Yeah, actually my point was more one of "UK is not the world!"
Steve Block wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to remove it completely from the edit history?
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. Look at it this way:
- Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least within the UK.
- The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is
published.
- By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
- I am called an editor.
Also note the [[McLibel case]].
Those sued did not make the statements, they simply distributed them.
I would think a lawyer will make a good argument that it is possible we can be named in a suit if we have edited a page containing a libellous statement and failed to remove it.
Your hypotheseis leads to an absurd result. If I edit this page containing an alleged libel for matters unrelated to that statement how am I supposed to know what is libellous in that article? By your line of reasoning, if I want to be safe I might as well delete the entire article. Your reading would make busibodies of us all.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to remove it completely from the edit history?
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. Look at it this way:
- Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least within the UK.
- The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is
published.
- By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
- I am called an editor.
Also note the [[McLibel case]].
Those sued did not make the statements, they simply distributed them.
I would think a lawyer will make a good argument that it is possible we can be named in a suit if we have edited a page containing a libellous statement and failed to remove it.
Your hypotheseis leads to an absurd result. If I edit this page containing an alleged libel for matters unrelated to that statement how am I supposed to know what is libellous in that article? By your line of reasoning, if I want to be safe I might as well delete the entire article. Your reading would make busibodies of us all.
Exactly my point. Why do you think I asked it? Does someone with the neccessary understanding have a better answer than "I don't like the result, therefoe I will ignore the hypothesis."
Steve Block wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to remove it completely from the edit history?
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. Look at it this way:
- Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least within the UK.
- The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is
published.
- By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
- I am called an editor.
Also note the [[McLibel case]].
Those sued did not make the statements, they simply distributed them.
I would think a lawyer will make a good argument that it is possible we can be named in a suit if we have edited a page containing a libellous statement and failed to remove it.
Your hypotheseis leads to an absurd result. If I edit this page containing an alleged libel for matters unrelated to that statement how am I supposed to know what is libellous in that article? By your line of reasoning, if I want to be safe I might as well delete the entire article. Your reading would make busibodies of us all.
Exactly my point. Why do you think I asked it? Does someone with the neccessary understanding have a better answer than "I don't like the result, therefoe I will ignore the hypothesis."
My apologies for missing the irony in your comments. Who uses irony on this list can sometimes be obscure. Of course it goes beyond merely not liking the results.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/7/05, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Is there any thoughts on private individuals? Are we open to libel suits if we edit a page containing a libellous statement and fail to remove it completely from the edit history?
I don't think there are any legal presidents in that area.
No, but it would be nice to hear people's opinions, and also nice to hear if any legal opinion had been given to Wikipedia regarding this. Look at it this way:
- Newspaper editors are often named in suits, at least within the UK.
- The reason they are named is that they authorise content which is
published.
- By saving a page, I am creating an edition which is published.
- I am called an editor.
Also note the [[McLibel case]].
Those sued did not make the statements, they simply distributed them.
I would think a lawyer will make a good argument that it is possible we can be named in a suit if we have edited a page containing a libellous statement and failed to remove it.
Your hypotheseis leads to an absurd result. If I edit this page containing an alleged libel for matters unrelated to that statement how am I supposed to know what is libellous in that article? By your line of reasoning, if I want to be safe I might as well delete the entire article. Your reading would make busibodies of us all.
Picking up on this again, are you refuting [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] as policy? We are already supposed to delete information that isn't verified. Isn't there an RFC regarding someone who added unverified information all over Wikipedia that wasn't removed. The sooner editors start realising that actually, yes, they do have a duty to remove material they do not believe is verified, the better Wikipedia will become.
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Before John Siegenthaler had his conniption, how many people viewed his article in the five months that the evil, terrible rumor that he (like everyone else) may have killed Kennedy was up?
Yes, I have limited sympathy for him, so I apologize in advance for the sarcasm.
I really would like to know the page views on the article.
There is no way to know. We don't retain access logs for that long an interval.
Kelly