those of you on the east coast, CBS news is about to air a thing on the EB/Wikipedia debate. :-) I'm sure it will be available all over the internet within the hour anyhow.
err.. the *US* east coast. :-)
On 3/28/06, Andrea Forte andrea.forte@gmail.com wrote:
those of you on the east coast, CBS news is about to air a thing on the EB/Wikipedia debate. :-) I'm sure it will be available all over the internet within the hour anyhow.
Neal Horsley explains: "Why I Am Suing Wikipedia "
Dateline March 28, 2006
Wikipedia, the online "encyclopedia," has for at least two years
contained an extensive article about me. For those of you not
familiar with Wikipedia, it is becoming a primary Internet research
source, accessed by millions of people looking for the "facts"
concerning all aspects of reality.
Search Wikipedia for Neal Horsley and you will see the article.
The article contains a libelous accusation that I advocate terrorism.
Obviously such an accusation at a time when this nation is fighting a
War Against Terrorism can lead to fatal consequences, not only for
myself but for those near me.
I have tried over the last few months to get the Wikipedia
organization to delete the libelous accusation. The Wikipedia staff
ignored me. Yesterday I posted the following statement in the
"Discussion" section of the article:
"The content of this article is not only patently false on numerous
details of fact (for example I was born in Bremen not Bowdon, Georgia;
I was in the USAF, not the Army), but contains libel per se when it
accuses me of advocating terrorism. I have on two occasions contacted
Wikipedia and told them to remove the libelous statement. I have been
ignored.
It is a matter of public record that in the recent past, I spent over
three years suing Planned Parenthood, NOW, and Geraldo Rivera when
they libelously accused me of assassinating the abortionist Barnett
Slepian. Even though I lost, it cost the various parties well over
$1,000,000 to deal with the litigation.
Wikipedia and the authors of the libelous statements on this
"encyclopedia" should prepare to deal with the same process unless
they retract the libelous accusation that I have advocated terrorism.
I will give them (whether the "them" be Wikipedia staff or the lying
author of the article about me) two weeks to get that statement out of
this article. If it is still there in two weeks from March 27, 2006, I
will initiate a defamation complaint in federal court.
Neal Horsley
Whether Wikipedia is allowed to contain patently false libel per se
against me will determine whether others can be so treated. Given
Wikipedia's growing influence in this world, unless Wikipedia is
forced to monitor its content for factual accuracy, the online
"encyclopedia" becomes a dangerous tool of confusion disseminating
falsehoods across the globe. The Spirit of Truth moves to combat such
vessels, and those who follow Him help.
One way you can help is to email all your local news outlets about the
threatened litigation against Wikipedia.
Over the past year or so there has been a fairly extensive media
coverage of Wikipedia and the news media--local, national and
international--will be interested in what is happening here. While
they will probably not cover this phase of the story, they will
certainly want to know what is happening. I don't have a current
world media email list, so your help in contacting your local media
will provide that service.
I will keep you posted as this situation progresses.
Neal
====================
Found on the web.
-Cberlet
Chip Berlet wrote:
It is a matter of public record that in the recent past, I spent over
three years suing Planned Parenthood, NOW, and Geraldo Rivera when
they libelously accused me of assassinating the abortionist Barnett
Slepian. Even though I lost...
So his argument for why we should remove the statement is: He sued someone else for publishing it, and a court ruled that it was not libelous?
-Mark
They will cost money. And that money might be a lot. On 3/28/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Chip Berlet wrote:
It is a matter of public record that in the recent past, I spent over
three years suing Planned Parenthood, NOW, and Geraldo Rivera when
they libelously accused me of assassinating the abortionist Barnett
Slepian. Even though I lost...
So his argument for why we should remove the statement is: He sued someone else for publishing it, and a court ruled that it was not libelous?
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Is it true that he contacted the Foundation and was ignored (sounds unlikely)? Are there reliable sources that he advocates terrorism?
Might a solution to cases such as these be to simply remove the material, and replace it with the relevant text from the email, warning the reader that the content may not be accurate or NPOV, and that's why?
Steve
On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Are there reliable sources that he advocates terrorism?
I haven't found any yet, but haven't looked that hard. I had never heard of the guy before, which I find quite agreeable. I think his advocacy is based on inference, not direct evidence of advocacy statements. He does things which an advocate of terrorism would do, but does not say he advocates terrorism in so many words. This sort of proof was once used in prosecuting the leaders of the Communist Party USA but the thinking was rejected by Yates v. United States. We have a brief article on that.
I think though, in terms of choice of plaintiff, he would make a good one. I would hate us to be so chickenshit that we could not truthfully say that this is a very bad man.
Fred
On 3/29/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think though, in terms of choice of plaintiff, he would make a good one. I would hate us to be so chickenshit that we could not truthfully say that this is a very bad man.
Shall we just call him a freedom fighter and be done with it?
Steve
Noble savage?
Fred
On Mar 29, 2006, at 6:50 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/29/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think though, in terms of choice of plaintiff, he would make a good one. I would hate us to be so chickenshit that we could not truthfully say that this is a very bad man.
Shall we just call him a freedom fighter and be done with it?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/29/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Are there reliable sources that he advocates terrorism?
I haven't found any yet, but haven't looked that hard. I had never heard of the guy before, which I find quite agreeable. I think his advocacy is based on inference, not direct evidence of advocacy statements. He does things which an advocate of terrorism would do, but does not say he advocates terrorism in so many words.
Any such sources should be in the article to begin with so if you can't find them, that's a good reason to remove it until we find a proper source. I no doubt do things an advocate of X does. But it doesn't mean I advocate X too. The same goes for this guy. I'd be happy to keep stuff (although the term terrorist should be replaced if possible), but we should source it all rigorously.
Has anyone checked the mailing lists for his supposed email yet?
Mgm
On 30/03/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone checked the mailing lists for his supposed email yet?
Mgm
No trace of 'Horsley' on any emails that have reached WikiEN-l (or gone into moderation on WikiEN-l) since I've been a list admin (almost a couple of years now) - unless the Gmail spam filter's picked them up. Also no messages to Wikipedia-l in that time either.
~Mark Ryan
On 3/30/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/03/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone checked the mailing lists for his supposed email yet?
Mgm
No trace of 'Horsley' on any emails that have reached WikiEN-l (or gone into moderation on WikiEN-l) since I've been a list admin (almost a couple of years now) - unless the Gmail spam filter's picked them up. Also no messages to Wikipedia-l in that time either.
~Mark Ryan
I don't recognise the name from helpdesk-I but i would have been easy to miss.
-- geni
We were alerted to his threats by Chip Berlet, and other user. Horsley never sent a message to the list.
Fred
On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:34 PM, Mark Ryan wrote:
On 30/03/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone checked the mailing lists for his supposed email yet?
Mgm
No trace of 'Horsley' on any emails that have reached WikiEN-l (or gone into moderation on WikiEN-l) since I've been a list admin (almost a couple of years now) - unless the Gmail spam filter's picked them up. Also no messages to Wikipedia-l in that time either.
~Mark Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I note someone's already removed the word 'terrorism' from the article. Correctly so, IMO.
-Matt
I think we all agree that the best way to deal with such accusations is to write comprehensive, neutral, well-sourced articles. Incidentally, that is also what someone like Neal Horsley should be most afraid of. So, what he is doing is very stupid, but then again, he is a stupid man.
Of course Wikimedia will face lawsuits. Our question should never be if a battle is worth fighting, but only if the article that someone complains about is sound from a legal and policy point of view. If it is, finding the money to pay for legal expenses is not going to be the problem. We'll just have to ask.
Erik
On 3/29/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Of course Wikimedia will face lawsuits. Our question should never be if a battle is worth fighting, but only if the article that someone complains about is sound from a legal and policy point of view. If it is, finding the money to pay for legal expenses is not going to be the problem. We'll just have to ask.
Dunno about you, but being threatened by a guy who's proud that he cost the other side $1,000,000 in a lawsuit that he lost works very well with me. The word "terrorist" (even if it was true) is not worth a million big ones to us.
Steve
On 3/29/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Dunno about you, but being threatened by a guy who's proud that he cost the other side $1,000,000 in a lawsuit that he lost works very well with me.
Then you're easily intimidated, because the first thing anyone who is seriously trying to threaten you with legal action will do is pull $ amounts out of their rear end. I think the word "terrorist" should generally be avoided for totally different reasons: It is ambiguous and has strong emotional connotations. We can use it if we attribute it to someone else, but for Wikipedia to adopt such a term as fact is always problematic. There are good reasons it is listed on [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid]].
This is not a matter of giving in to Horsley's threats, it's a matter of rigorously applying policy, which we should always do when facing such threats. Many will not see the difference, but it will become more visible as the article evolves over the years.
Erik
On 3/29/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Then you're easily intimidated, because the first thing anyone who is
Sure. But then, I avoid edit wars too. :)
seriously trying to threaten you with legal action will do is pull $ amounts out of their rear end. I think the word "terrorist" should generally be avoided for totally different reasons: It is ambiguous and has strong emotional connotations. We can use it if we attribute it to someone else, but for Wikipedia to adopt such a term as fact is always problematic. There are good reasons it is listed on [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid]].
Yep. Totally agree with that policy in general.
This is not a matter of giving in to Horsley's threats, it's a matter of rigorously applying policy, which we should always do when facing such threats. Many will not see the difference, but it will become more visible as the article evolves over the years.
Well, *we* should definitely do that. What the Foundation does in the face of continued threats is, of course, up to them ;)
Steve
Andrea Forte wrote:
err.. the *US* east coast. :-)
Here is the Video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/videoplayer/newVid/small_player/vplayer2.shtml...
"online upstart". Like that's a bad thing. And Britannica's rep's comment making it sound like a foregone conclusion that Wikipedia is worse than EB. lol.
-Hermione1980
--- Andrea Forte andrea.forte@gmail.com wrote:
those of you on the east coast, CBS news is about to air a thing on the EB/Wikipedia debate. :-) I'm sure it will be available all over the internet within the hour anyhow. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com