Hi, all. I've been corresponding with an attorney about some issues pertaining to the Disinfopedia. He has some concern about whether we might be legally liable for its content. Specifically, could we be sued for libel or slander if someone posts false information there?
I think this issue is substantially the same for Disinfopedia as it is for Wikipedia, since we both use the same software and editing rules (although the editorial standards are slightly different). I'm hoping therefore that someone here can tell me what discussions have taken place about this issue already and where I might go for further information.
Here's what the attorney wrote in his message to me:
The disinfopedia thing looks like a cool use of web technology - but I don't understand how you'll prevent all kinds of wackos from screwing around with the text.
I responded by saying (edited here for brevity):
That was my reaction when I first heard about the Wikipedia web site (www.wikipedia.org). In practice, though, it works pretty well. In reality, most people behave honorably and appropriately. They far outnumber the wackos, and people who engage in vandalism are quickly detected and banned. ... I would add that even "wackos" can sometimes make useful contributions (depending, of course, on how you define "wacko"). ...
The key point here is that since everyone who visits the site can *edit* as well as *read* articles, errors and deliberate disinformation should get detected and fixed quickly. This approach has worked quite well in developing open source software such as the Linux operating system, and it seems to work well for Wikipedia.
Of course, we can't expect 100% accuracy, but that's not our goal. Our goal is to create a useful and *largely* accurate tool for use in analyzing and understanding propaganda. This project is still experimental and in its infancy, but I'm hopeful that we'll be able to meet and surpass the level of accuracy found in the mainstream U.S. news media.
The attorney then responded further:
Thanks for such a detailed answer; very interesting. Of course I agree that some so-called wackos will provide good info. As a lawyer I'm most concerned that you not get in a situation where there's slander going on and you could be accountable for it.
[SNIP]
I think your website structure looks on first appearance to have a greater degree of control (oversight/endorsement of content) than some others, and therefore I'd expect a greater potential for liability exposure. I haven't mined my way down the site to see your caveats etc. just got this impression on a quick look. No experience or insights other than that.
Comments, anyone?
The lawyer is right. Potential liability is huge, basically the same as any publisher. Prepare...
However common sense plays a role here. Consider the situation of anyone contemplating a lawsuit against you...
Fred
From: Sheldon Rampton sheldon.rampton@verizon.net Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:01:30 -0600 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: legal liability issues
Hi, all. I've been corresponding with an attorney about some issues pertaining to the Disinfopedia. He has some concern about whether we might be legally liable for its content. Specifically, could we be sued for libel or slander if someone posts false information there?
I think this issue is substantially the same for Disinfopedia as it is for Wikipedia, since we both use the same software and editing rules (although the editorial standards are slightly different). I'm hoping therefore that someone here can tell me what discussions have taken place about this issue already and where I might go for further information.
Here's what the attorney wrote in his message to me:
The disinfopedia thing looks like a cool use of web technology - but I don't understand how you'll prevent all kinds of wackos from screwing around with the text.
I responded by saying (edited here for brevity):
That was my reaction when I first heard about the Wikipedia web site (www.wikipedia.org). In practice, though, it works pretty well. In reality, most people behave honorably and appropriately. They far outnumber the wackos, and people who engage in vandalism are quickly detected and banned. ... I would add that even "wackos" can sometimes make useful contributions (depending, of course, on how you define "wacko"). ...
The key point here is that since everyone who visits the site can *edit* as well as *read* articles, errors and deliberate disinformation should get detected and fixed quickly. This approach has worked quite well in developing open source software such as the Linux operating system, and it seems to work well for Wikipedia.
Of course, we can't expect 100% accuracy, but that's not our goal. Our goal is to create a useful and *largely* accurate tool for use in analyzing and understanding propaganda. This project is still experimental and in its infancy, but I'm hopeful that we'll be able to meet and surpass the level of accuracy found in the mainstream U.S. news media.
The attorney then responded further:
Thanks for such a detailed answer; very interesting. Of course I agree that some so-called wackos will provide good info. As a lawyer I'm most concerned that you not get in a situation where there's slander going on and you could be accountable for it.
[SNIP]
I think your website structure looks on first appearance to have a greater degree of control (oversight/endorsement of content) than some others, and therefore I'd expect a greater potential for liability exposure. I haven't mined my way down the site to see your caveats etc. just got this impression on a quick look. No experience or insights other than that.
Comments, anyone?
| Sheldon Rampton | Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
However common sense plays a role here. Consider the situation of anyone contemplating a lawsuit against you...
Well, from this perspective, Sheldon's disinfopedia is at more of a risk than we are, I think. His project is political and confrontational in a way that ours isn't. He specifically lists what he calls "Case Studies of deceptive PR campaigns," for example.
From our perspective, NPOV is a great mechanism for avoiding libel,
because it's pretty hard to libel someone without taking any position.
Just as an example, Wikipedia would not call a PR campaign "deceptive", we would merely report that Disinfopedia said so. ;-)
As far as the liability we might have for words posted by a random contributor, the DMCA gives a pretty strong defense to that.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
However common sense plays a role here. Consider the situation of anyone contemplating a lawsuit against you...
From our perspective, NPOV is a great mechanism for avoiding libel,
because it's pretty hard to libel someone without taking any position.
As far as the liability we might have for words posted by a random contributor, the DMCA gives a pretty strong defense to that.
The argument is always available that the person who claims to be libeled has as much right to change the offending material as anybody else.
Ec.
According to the constitution of the united states, libel should be solved out of the courts simply by notifying everyone of the incorrect information. Then, supposedly, the case is settled (although there is no legal mechanism for this). If legaly significant libelous content is found, we could notify all of the users (by email) who viewed it and change the content. If we recieved a notice that we were to be sued, a notice could be put on the front page notifying everyone of the falsness of the content in addition to what I said above. We should probably also put some sort of legal disclaimer on the front page. Could you get the lawyer to write one for you?
--- Sheldon Rampton sheldon.rampton@verizon.net wrote:
Hi, all. I've been corresponding with an attorney about some issues pertaining to the Disinfopedia. He has some concern about whether we might be legally liable for its content. Specifically, could we be sued for libel or slander if someone posts false information there
...
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
"According to the constitution of the united states, libel should be solved out of the courts simply by notifying everyone of the incorrect information."
Oh, really? Which article would that be?
I don't know which article of the constitution it is in. I read it in the book "Cyber Rights" by Mike Goodwin. I guess it was inaccurate.
Oh, really? Which article would that be?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com