There is no legal ground related to us mentionning that a third party elected him a kook; so this issue is irrelevant.
If not on legal grounds, how about on the general principle of being nice?
Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label?
Uncle Ed thinks not.
Hi Ed,
Sending this offline, just to say that I very much agree with you regarding the principle of being nice. We seem to be almost alone in this, however, and fighting an uphill battle.
Best,
Sarah
On 5/11/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
There is no legal ground related to us mentionning that a third party elected him a kook; so this issue is irrelevant.
If not on legal grounds, how about on the general principle of being nice?
Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label?
Uncle Ed thinks not. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sorry all, I meant that to be offline.
Sarah
On 5/11/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ed,
Sending this offline, just to say that I very much agree with you regarding the principle of being nice. We seem to be almost alone in this, however, and fighting an uphill battle.
Best,
Sarah
On 5/11/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
There is no legal ground related to us mentionning that a third party elected him a kook; so this issue is irrelevant.
If not on legal grounds, how about on the general principle of being nice?
Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label?
Uncle Ed thinks not. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Whatever. I also agree.
On Wed, 11 May 2005 slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry all, I meant that to be offline.
Sarah
On 5/11/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ed,
Sending this offline, just to say that I very much agree with you regarding the principle of being nice. We seem to be almost alone in this, however, and fighting an uphill battle.
Best,
Sarah
On 5/11/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
There is no legal ground related to us mentionning that a third party elected him a kook; so this issue is irrelevant.
If not on legal grounds, how about on the general principle of being nice?
Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label?
Uncle Ed thinks not. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Should we then only write nice things about people/ Should we only include facts that the subjects' approve? Or should we be impartial and show that there is reality and negativeity?
On 5/11/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ed,
Sending this offline, just to say that I very much agree with you regarding the principle of being nice. We seem to be almost alone in this, however, and fighting an uphill battle.
Best,
Sarah
On 5/11/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
There is no legal ground related to us mentionning that a third party elected him a kook; so this issue is irrelevant.
If not on legal grounds, how about on the general principle of being nice?
Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label?
Uncle Ed thinks not. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/11/05, Stacey Greenstein stacey.nj@gmail.com wrote:
Should we then only write nice things about people/ Should we only include facts that the subjects' approve? Or should we be impartial and show that there is reality and negativeity?
And when I wrote that I meant the note to Ed to be offline, I meant offlist, sorry. Was trying to do too many things at once there.
Stacey, it's not a question of requiring subjects' approval. Sometimes it's important to fight to keep material in Wikpedia, and I've done it, but in this case, the subject is a private person, entirely non-notable, in a story that isn't a matter of public interest; so if it were up to me alone, I'd delete it because it's upsetting him. It's a question of cost-benefit. In this case, there's a cost to him and no benefit to us.
Sarah
Wiktionary: Noun kook
(Slang) an eccentric, strange or crazy person.
I really don't understand how someone could get so worked up about such a thing in the first place. I've been named all sorts of things by a bunch of vandals, but most people know it's complete and utter rubbish.
I'd recommend this person to take it easy and laught at the effort these people make to do all this.
--Mgm
On 5/12/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/11/05, Stacey Greenstein stacey.nj@gmail.com wrote:
Should we then only write nice things about people/ Should we only include facts that the subjects' approve? Or should we be impartial and show that there is reality and negativeity?
And when I wrote that I meant the note to Ed to be offline, I meant offlist, sorry. Was trying to do too many things at once there.
Stacey, it's not a question of requiring subjects' approval. Sometimes it's important to fight to keep material in Wikpedia, and I've done it, but in this case, the subject is a private person, entirely non-notable, in a story that isn't a matter of public interest; so if it were up to me alone, I'd delete it because it's upsetting him. It's a question of cost-benefit. In this case, there's a cost to him and no benefit to us.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Wiktionary: Noun kook
(Slang) an eccentric, strange or crazy person.
I really don't understand how someone could get so worked up about such a thing in the first place. I've been named all sorts of things by a bunch of vandals, but most people know it's complete and utter rubbish.
I'd recommend this person to take it easy and laught at the effort these people make to do all this.
--Mgm
On 5/12/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/11/05, Stacey Greenstein stacey.nj@gmail.com wrote:
Should we then only write nice things about people/ Should we only include facts that the subjects' approve? Or should we be impartial and show that there is reality and negativeity?
And when I wrote that I meant the note to Ed to be offline, I meant offlist, sorry. Was trying to do too many things at once there.
Stacey, it's not a question of requiring subjects' approval. Sometimes it's important to fight to keep material in Wikpedia, and I've done it, but in this case, the subject is a private person, entirely non-notable, in a story that isn't a matter of public interest; so if it were up to me alone, I'd delete it because it's upsetting him. It's a question of cost-benefit. In this case, there's a cost to him and no benefit to us.
Sarah
Wiktionary: Noun kook
1. (Slang) an eccentric, strange or crazy person.
Wiktionary: Adjective crazy (crazier, craziest)
1. insane, demented 2. out of control * When Jim gets on the motorcycle he goes crazy. 3. overly excited or enthusiastic
Noun craziness (uncountable)
Synonyms
* lunatic * deranged * mad man * nut case
I laugh at the effort *he* takes in appealing their labels.
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:39:03 +0100, Stacey Greenstein wrote:
Should we then only write nice things about people/ Should we only include facts that the subjects' approve? Or should we be impartial and show that there is reality and negativeity?
The impartiality of showing reality and negativity does not mean that we need to abandon principles such as kindness. I find it helpful to remember that there are feeling people on the other side of my screen. And, yes, I do recognise that some people will see this view as sanctimonious.
Theo
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label?
It seems to me based on what I've seen over the past week or two of this debate that Wollman is both notable and public.
I think it is important ("crucial" may be overstating it) to Wikipedia's integrity that it doesn't remove notable, verifiable information about someone from articles solely based on the complaints and apparently groundless legal threats of that person.
Just for the record, Mr Wollmann is still requesting removal of that information. I am not exactly sure what we should answer him now...
Ant
Bryan Derksen a écrit:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label?
It seems to me based on what I've seen over the past week or two of this debate that Wollman is both notable and public.
I think it is important ("crucial" may be overstating it) to Wikipedia's integrity that it doesn't remove notable, verifiable information about someone from articles solely based on the complaints and apparently groundless legal threats of that person.
English Wiktionary: Noun kook
(Slang) an eccentric, strange or crazy person.
Put things in perspective. Is it really that annoying a label? On the other hand, I don't think an award like that needs to be mentioned.
--Mgm On 5/12/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Just for the record, Mr Wollmann is still requesting removal of that information. I am not exactly sure what we should answer him now...
Ant
Bryan Derksen a écrit:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label?
It seems to me based on what I've seen over the past week or two of this debate that Wollman is both notable and public.
I think it is important ("crucial" may be overstating it) to Wikipedia's integrity that it doesn't remove notable, verifiable information about someone from articles solely based on the complaints and apparently groundless legal threats of that person.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Anthere said:
Just for the record, Mr Wollmann is still requesting removal of that information. I am not exactly sure what we should answer him now...
We can't easily stop editors mentioning what they want, except by order of the Foundation or Jimbo. Since this information is arguably encyclopedic I don't think there would be any other way; whilst I sympathize with Ed Poor's Niceness Principle I don't think it can conclusively command a consensus among editors to keep Wollmann's name out (although I suppose I could end up being pleasantly surprised on this). My experience in the past has been that there is something about Wollmann that exercises a deep fascination to some that is far beyond what may seem reasonable to others. So it comes down to the old legal calculus: is this guy likely to sue and if he did could you afford it? Your lawyers can advise you.
Anthere (anthere9@yahoo.com) [050512 15:34]:
Just for the record, Mr Wollmann is still requesting removal of that information. I am not exactly sure what we should answer him now...
Probably not at all. Read these:
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/index.html http://www.smbtech.com/ed/whyed.html
- d.
David Gerard a écrit:
Anthere (anthere9@yahoo.com) [050512 15:34]:
Just for the record, Mr Wollmann is still requesting removal of that information. I am not exactly sure what we should answer him now...
Probably not at all. Read these:
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/index.html http://www.smbtech.com/ed/whyed.html
- d.
I seeeee.
Well, in any cases, we are not calling him a krook, we report someone else is doing so. There is absolutely no standing for a legal action here.
Besides, while I agree that "yes, who cares...", I consider we should NOT accept to remove an information, just because the target is unhappy with it. Even if in this case it would not matter, the principle is bad.
While I would just not answer anything at all, the problem is that he is calling by phone Terry. And while it is easy not to answer a mail, it is not so easy not to answer a phone call.
This said... if Alt is calling him a kook, should he proceed requesting removal of the reference on wikipedia, he might also get a troll label on his forehead on top.
Ant
Anthere (anthere9@yahoo.com) [050513 03:34]:
While I would just not answer anything at all, the problem is that he is calling by phone Terry. And while it is easy not to answer a mail, it is not so easy not to answer a phone call.
She asks him to hereby stop calling and write a proper legal threat (on paper, from proper lawyer, signed for, etc.) if he has one to make. He keeps calling, it's harassment.
- d.
David Gerard a écrit:
Anthere (anthere9@yahoo.com) [050513 03:34]:
While I would just not answer anything at all, the problem is that he is calling by phone Terry. And while it is easy not to answer a mail, it is not so easy not to answer a phone call.
She asks him to hereby stop calling and write a proper legal threat (on paper, from proper lawyer, signed for, etc.) if he has one to make. He keeps calling, it's harassment.
- d.
You have a point... We might suggest that he (Terry is a man...) record the discussions...
Ant
Make, and enforce policy of not supporting any encyclopedia content over the phone. Refer him back to this list if need be :)
Reserve phone usage for media and press enquiries and other business needs only. Content issues should be dealt with in writing.
Cheers,
-j
David Gerard a écrit:
Anthere (anthere9@yahoo.com) [050513 03:34]:
While I would just not answer anything at all, the problem is that he is calling by phone Terry. And while it is easy not to answer a mail, it is not so easy not to answer a phone call.
She asks him to hereby stop calling and write a proper legal threat (on paper, from proper lawyer, signed for, etc.) if he has one to make. He keeps calling, it's harassment.
- d.
You have a point... We might suggest that he (Terry is a man...) record the discussions...
Ant
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Anthere wrote:
Besides, while I agree that "yes, who cares...", I consider we should NOT accept to remove an information, just because the target is unhappy with it. Even if in this case it would not matter, the principle is bad.
Amen to that. Now that this whole go-round is in the public record, it's important not be seen backing down, otherwise Scientology, Disney, Bush administration, etc, will all be calling up poor Terry to remove the material that they don't like.
We could end up as, what do they call it in the UK? - oh yeah, "Bush's poodle-pedia".
:-)
Stan
I agree.
He's not a private individual but a public figure, regardless of his stated desire (which conflicts his public actions). We're not calling him a kook, we're noting that a Usenet group is calling him a kook.
[[en:User:UtherSRG]]
On 5/12/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Just for the record, Mr Wollmann is still requesting removal of that information. I am not exactly sure what we should answer him now...
Ant
How about "no"?
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It seems that several people have looked at his demands and found them groundless. People who make irrational demands will never be influenced by rational responses.
Most legal threats are nothing more than crude attempts at intimidation. They can be considered a criminal act in some places. Nevertheless, it often works because so many people are absolutely paranoid about ending up in court. They put themselves at a disadvantage because they assume that they will be found guilty of something, even when in a civil case it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
If Mr. Wollmann thinks that he has a case let him go ahead with it, and show us that he means more than simply to intimidate. We can easily promise that when we receive the court documents in the case we will reconsider our position in the matter. This may or may not result in a removal of what he finds offensive from the site. Meanwhile it will have been very costly for him to mount his case with no prospects of recovering those costs.
Ec
Anthere wrote:
Just for the record, Mr Wollmann is still requesting removal of that information. I am not exactly sure what we should answer him now...
Ant
Bryan Derksen a écrit:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label?
It seems to me based on what I've seen over the past week or two of this debate that Wollman is both notable and public.
I think it is important ("crucial" may be overstating it) to Wikipedia's integrity that it doesn't remove notable, verifiable information about someone from articles solely based on the complaints and apparently groundless legal threats of that person.
Ray Saintonge said:
If Mr. Wollmann thinks that he has a case let him go ahead with it, and show us that he means more than simply to intimidate. We can easily promise that when we receive the court documents in the case we will reconsider our position in the matter. This may or may not result in a removal of what he finds offensive from the site. Meanwhile it will have been very costly for him to mount his case with no prospects of recovering those costs.
Well, Wikipedia probably wouldn't be vulnerable, but where individuals are involved he could get a default judgement in a plaintiff-friendly UK court for a no-show defendant in the US, with costs awarded (which is very common in UK cases), and then use that as leverage in the US. This technique has been tried against Usenet posters and worked well. Since Wikipedia content is produced by individuals who are often identifiable it would probably work as well on Wikipedia. He may have to demonstrate standing to sue in UK courts, but that could be as simple as selling books through Amazon.co.uk--which Wollmann does, as it happens.
Well, Wikipedia probably wouldn't be vulnerable, but where individuals are involved he could get a default judgement in a plaintiff-friendly UK court for a no-show defendant in the US, with costs awarded (which is very common in UK cases), and then use that as leverage in the US. This technique has been tried against Usenet posters and worked well. Since Wikipedia content is produced by individuals who are often identifiable it would probably work as well on Wikipedia. He may have to demonstrate standing to sue in UK courts, but that could be as simple as selling books through Amazon.co.uk--which Wollmann does, as it happens.
Yes, yes, the situation is hopeless. We're all going to be sued into abject homeless poverty if we date to publish anything but the innocuous pablum known to Western Civilization.
We'll begin by renaming it the Nicepedia.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
If Mr. Wollmann thinks that he has a case let him go ahead with it, and show us that he means more than simply to intimidate. We can easily promise that when we receive the court documents in the case we will reconsider our position in the matter. This may or may not result in a removal of what he finds offensive from the site. Meanwhile it will have been very costly for him to mount his case with no prospects of recovering those costs.
Well, Wikipedia probably wouldn't be vulnerable, but where individuals are involved he could get a default judgement in a plaintiff-friendly UK court for a no-show defendant in the US, with costs awarded (which is very common in UK cases), and then use that as leverage in the US. This technique has been tried against Usenet posters and worked well. Since Wikipedia content is produced by individuals who are often identifiable it would probably work as well on Wikipedia. He may have to demonstrate standing to sue in UK courts, but that could be as simple as selling books through Amazon.co.uk--which Wollmann does, as it happens.
By the same token, why hasn't Wikipedia been sued by the Church of Scientology for revealing its top secret information, which church members can only access after a certain degree of financial support of the church? Couldn't they sue Wikipedia for lost income?
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Alphax wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
If Mr. Wollmann thinks that he has a case let him go ahead with it, and show us that he means more than simply to intimidate. We can easily promise that when we receive the court documents in the case we will reconsider our position in the matter. This may or may not result in a removal of what he finds offensive from the site. Meanwhile it will have been very costly for him to mount his case with no prospects of recovering those costs.
Well, Wikipedia probably wouldn't be vulnerable, but where individuals are involved he could get a default judgement in a plaintiff-friendly UK court for a no-show defendant in the US, with costs awarded (which is very common in UK cases), and then use that as leverage in the US. This technique has been tried against Usenet posters and worked well. Since Wikipedia content is produced by individuals who are often identifiable it would probably work as well on Wikipedia. He may have to demonstrate standing to sue in UK courts, but that could be as simple as selling books through Amazon.co.uk--which Wollmann does, as it happens.
By the same token, why hasn't Wikipedia been sued by the Church of Scientology for revealing its top secret information, which church members can only access after a certain degree of financial support of the church? Couldn't they sue Wikipedia for lost income?
Interesting observation. Whatever the merits of their cases Scientology is probably in a much better position than Wollmann when it comes to the experience and funding needed to carry on a suit. Maybe that experience has also taught them when not to sue. ;-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge said:
Interesting observation. Whatever the merits of their cases Scientology is probably in a much better position than Wollmann when it comes to the experience and funding needed to carry on a suit. Maybe that experience has also taught them when not to sue. ;-)
They tend to sue under the laws of copyright and trade secrets. Their lawsuits do seem to be counter-productive, but the effect on the defendant is usually disproportionately brutal.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
If Mr. Wollmann thinks that he has a case let him go ahead with it, and show us that he means more than simply to intimidate. We can easily promise that when we receive the court documents in the case we will reconsider our position in the matter. This may or may not result in a removal of what he finds offensive from the site. Meanwhile it will have been very costly for him to mount his case with no prospects of recovering those costs.
Well, Wikipedia probably wouldn't be vulnerable, but where individuals are involved he could get a default judgement in a plaintiff-friendly UK court for a no-show defendant in the US, with costs awarded (which is very common in UK cases), and then use that as leverage in the US. This technique has been tried against Usenet posters and worked well. Since Wikipedia content is produced by individuals who are often identifiable it would probably work as well on Wikipedia. He may have to demonstrate standing to sue in UK courts, but that could be as simple as selling books through Amazon.co.uk--which Wollmann does, as it happens.
I'm not familiar with the Usenet cases, so I can't comment on what they mean.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I thought that Wohlmann was a UK resident. If so his selling books through Amazon.co.uk should only be a secondary issue.
Defaulting would not be a preferred option, but that too would depend on just what he is asking. Assuming that the defendant is a US person, he too should be able to receive an award of costs including travel costs. Perhaps he could be asked to pay conduct money or post a bond for costs of attending. It would be refundable to him if he wins the case.
Ec
Ray Saintonge said:
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I thought that Wohlmann was a UK resident.
He lives in Southern California.
Defaulting would not be a preferred option, but that too would depend on just what he is asking. Assuming that the defendant is a US person, he too should be able to receive an award of costs including travel costs. Perhaps he could be asked to pay conduct money or post a bond for costs of attending. It would be refundable to him if he wins the case.
I'm not in charge of the British legal system, so I have no authority to mandate any of the above.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I thought that Wohlmann was a UK resident.
He lives in Southern California.
Thanks.
Defaulting would not be a preferred option, but that too would depend on just what he is asking. Assuming that the defendant is a US person, he too should be able to receive an award of costs including travel costs. Perhaps he could be asked to pay conduct money or post a bond for costs of attending. It would be refundable to him if he wins the case.
I'm not in charge of the British legal system, so I have no authority to mandate any of the above.
I can't see the British courts taking too kindly to one U.S. resident using them to sue another U.S. resident, even when some technicality could give them jurisdiction. The plaintiff would also need to appear in court to present his case. If both parties fail to appear the case would be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Ec
Ray Saintonge said:
If both parties fail to appear the case would be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Yes, he'd need to retain and brief counsel to prepare and present a pro forma complaint alongside evidence to satisfy the court. He'd have to ensure that the defendant was served. He wouldn't have to show up in court.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
If both parties fail to appear the case would be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Yes, he'd need to retain and brief counsel to prepare and present a pro forma complaint alongside evidence to satisfy the court. He'd have to ensure that the defendant was served. He wouldn't have to show up in court.
Presumably in those circumstances copies of the paper "evidence" would also be delivered to the defendant, who would have the right to cross-examine, or raise objections that some of the evidence is inadmissible. Many Wikipedians do not edit under their own names. What standards of evidence do the British courts follow when the defence is simply, "It wasn't I who said that." The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, and someone needs to accept responsibility for the costs to a defendant who has been misidentified.
Ec
Ray Saintonge said:
Many Wikipedians do not edit under their own names. What standards of evidence do the British courts follow when the defence is simply, "It wasn't I who said that." The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, and someone needs to accept responsibility for the costs to a defendant who has been misidentified.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff in establishing that the defendant made the edits, but this is decided on the balance of probabilities. A reasonably resourceful plaintiff could track down most Wikipedia editors easily enough. But the neat thing about the UK system, from the plaintiff's point of view, is that he can sue the website. If he notifies the website of the problem and they don't take it down fairly promptly, they're wide open. Not doing this in 1997 (in that case, in relation to a Usenet post that wasn't even made on their servers) cost Demon Internet a lawsuit, which eventually led to about USD 1,000,000 settlement, plus whatever costs they incurred in a lawsuit that dragged on for over a year. FOr the purposes of defamation in UK law, a website is a publisher.
The case in US law is very different because of the CDA 230(c)(1).
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
Many Wikipedians do not edit under their own names. What standards of evidence do the British courts follow when the defence is simply, "It wasn't I who said that." The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, and someone needs to accept responsibility for the costs to a defendant who has been misidentified.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff in establishing that the defendant made the edits, but this is decided on the balance of probabilities. A reasonably resourceful plaintiff could track down most Wikipedia editors easily enough.
Probably. Still there would be questions about whether retaining the material in the archives would be continued publication. Edits are constantly being replaced, and removal from immediate access. The definition of publisher under the UK Defamation Act is also interesting.
."publisher" means a commercial publisher, that is, a person whose business is issuing material to the public, or a section of the public, who issues material containing the statement in the course of that business.
But the neat thing about the UK system, from the plaintiff's point of view, is that he can sue the website. If he notifies the website of the problem and they don't take it down fairly promptly, they're wide open. Not doing this in 1997 (in that case, in relation to a Usenet post that wasn't even made on their servers) cost Demon Internet a lawsuit, which eventually led to about USD 1,000,000 settlement, plus whatever costs they incurred in a lawsuit that dragged on for over a year. FOr the purposes of defamation in UK law, a website is a publisher.
The case in US law is very different because of the CDA 230(c)(1).
The damages awarded in Godfrey v. Demon were £15,000. The legal costs awarded at £250,000 seem to be completely out of proportion to the damages, so I would be curious about the British procedure for taxing costs. Where does the USD 1,000,000 exageration come from?
The Godfrey case begins with an admission that this is a new matter for the British courts. The decision is a trial decision with no appeal apparently undertaken. It would be interesting to see how much of the decision would survive an appeal.
The defendants in this case were a UK company, so how this might have been reciprocally enforced against a US company did not arise. Nevertheless US courts are loath to enforce foreign orders which they see as violating the first amendment rights of a defendant.
Ec
Ray Saintonge said:
Still there would be questions about whether retaining the material in the archives would be continued publication. Edits are constantly being replaced, and removal from immediate access.
I don't know what WikiMedia's lawyers think of the fact that every single item in Wikipedia's archives are immediately available via URLs, and that each article on Wikipedia contains a link to the history which is a list of links to previous content. An interesting thing happened today. An article was listed for deletion, but at some point RickK marked it as a copyvio; the article seemed to be heading for a keep or no consensus. I disputed Rick's action because the article isn't a copy, and Rick pointed out that an earlier incarnation had been a copyvio. I still thought it was OTT, but now I'm thinking that copyvio is the right place, and that the correct action to take is that the article should be deleted and all but the copyvio versions restored.
The definition of publisher under the UK Defamation Act is also interesting.
It's extremely broad under that act. Basically if you cause or enable something defamatory to be transmitted to others in any way, shape or form, you're a publisher, but if you're an internet service provider you *probably* have a get-out unless and until you're made aware of the specific defamation.
The damages awarded in Godfrey v. Demon were £15,000. The legal costs awarded at £250,000 seem to be completely out of proportion to the damages, so I would be curious about the British procedure for taxing costs. Where does the USD 1,000,000 exageration come from?
The case never went to court; it was an out-of-court settlement, not an award. I misremembered the amount. The pre-trial phase of the case was a very hard-fought one so I don't think the costs sound particularly high in the circumstances. Godfrey is very persistent and confident in his ability to win cases, so he tends to put everything into them.
The defendants in this case were a UK company, so how this might have been reciprocally enforced against a US company did not arise.
See Godfrey versus Cornell University.
Pioneer-12 disputes the application of the GFDL to his signed contributions on talk namespace, a fact that only became apparent to me a few minutes ago, but he has continued to contribute disputed material to talk space.
To avoid further disputed material being contributed I have blocked him--I know this is going to be controversial because he hasn't really done anything "wrong", it's just a legal dispute between him and Wikipedia, so I'm not going to engage in arguments over this, but it seems to me like the best way to limit the potential damage.
Bryan Derksen said:
It seems to me based on what I've seen over the past week or two of this debate that Wollman is both notable and public.
Well that's a judgement call, and we can respectfully disagree on this.
In rebuttal I recall that Wollmann's Wikipedia entry was listed for deletion in January and it was deleted because the consensus at the time was that Wollmann was *not* notable. During the discussion those voting had access to all public documentation, as this was in links from the article at the time and summarised in the article itself (most of which was written by me as the original article had been severely POV).
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bryan Derksen said:
It seems to me based on what I've seen over the past week or two of this debate that Wollman is both notable and public.
Well that's a judgement call, and we can respectfully disagree on this.
Dratted respectfulness. :)
In rebuttal I recall that Wollmann's Wikipedia entry was listed for deletion in January and it was deleted because the consensus at the time was that Wollmann was *not* notable. During the discussion those voting had access to all public documentation, as this was in links from the article at the time and summarised in the article itself (most of which was written by me as the original article had been severely POV).
The current context is just the alt.usenet.kooks article, though. In the little microcosm that is this newsgroup Wollmann has been voted as the Kook of the Millennium, which suggests a significant degree of notoriety. I can envision Wollmann not having enough notability outside that context to warrant his own separate article but still enough to be mentioned within the alt.usenet.kooks article, much like how many fictional character articles have lately been folded into the main articles on the works of fiction they belong to.
Loshon hora, that's for sure!
On Wed, 11 May 2005, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
There is no legal ground related to us mentionning that a third party elected him a kook; so this issue is irrelevant.
If not on legal grounds, how about on the general principle of being nice?
Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label?
Uncle Ed thinks not. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On May 11, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label?
In an article on said "anonymous troublemakers" when they have indicated that he is the most deserving person they have ever given that label to?
Yeah, it kinda is.
-Snowspinner