Actually I don't really see the difference with a classical newspaper.
They can very well damage reputations... and actually they do ! But just
like freedom of the press, freedom of speech is more important than
individuals and Laws allow special liability regimes for both the press
and wikipedia.
Poe, Marshall wrote:
Mark wrote:
And in this case, I don't see how ethical
issues enter into it at all.
Like this: deciding what you are going to say and what you aren't going
to say is on some level an ethical or moral decision. Similarly,
deciding what you are going publish and what you aren't going to publish
is an ethical or moral decision. Now, we can deny this, but denial
doesn't make it so. In the case of the offended party in USAToday, WP
(whoever that is) facilitated the publication of arguably libelous
statements. Those statements harmed that individual. I can't speak for
you, but this makes me uncomfortable.
If the biography is inaccurate, it should be
edited, and in fact anyone
(including the
offended person) can do so. The ability to sue
whoever first made it
inaccurate is
superfluous.
Maybe, but as someone said earlier, what if he hadn't found the article?
What if it had seriously damaged his reputation? What if this damage
extended to his ability to make a living and support his family? The
point about slander and libel is that the damage it does is very hard to
undo. Would correcting the article get this man his reputation back? I
doubt it.
The basic problem here is that no one stands behind the factual claims
on Wikipedia--no publishers, no editors, no authors, just some amorphous
and constantly changing "community." I should add that I say this as a
*big fan* of WP. It worries me.
Best,
Marshall Poe
The Atlantic Monthly
www.memorywiki.org
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l