Kelly wrote:
I find it ironic that this guy founded the "Freedom Forum First
Amendment Center".
Sounds like he doesn't really care that much about the First Amendment.
Re the first amendment, and the authors failure to edit his own article, etc.
The Wikipedia project itself bears some responsibility here. If you are going to provide a soapbox for folks to stand on and exercise their first amendment rights, you are in part responsible for what they say. This is common sense, and SOP in all "establishment" (read "trusted") print publications. The editors stand behind what the authors say. As Mr. Seigenthaler says, his bio, which was broadcast from our soapbox, was full of errors, some of which (by his accounting, and hopefully not that of any court) were libelous. Alas (and in distinction to traditional print publications with bylines), Mr. Seigenthaler has no recourse, because he can't really find out who wrote the words that he finds offensive so that he might take legal action. These are serious ethical issues, and I don't think we should dismiss them.
Re the first amendment, and the authors failure to edit his own article, etc. The Wikipedia project itself bears some responsibility here. If you are going to provide a soapbox for folks to stand on and exercise their first amendment rights, you are in part responsible for what they say.
Many Wikipedians live in countries with no "first amendment".
Poe, Marshall wrote:
Re the first amendment, and the authors failure to edit his own article, etc.
The Wikipedia project itself bears some responsibility here. If you are going to provide a soapbox for folks to stand on and exercise their first amendment rights, you are in part responsible for what they say. This is common sense, and SOP in all "establishment" (read "trusted") print publications. The editors stand behind what the authors say. As Mr. Seigenthaler says, his bio, which was broadcast from our soapbox, was full of errors, some of which (by his accounting, and hopefully not that of any court) were libelous. Alas (and in distinction to traditional print publications with bylines), Mr. Seigenthaler has no recourse, because he can't really find out who wrote the words that he finds offensive so that he might take legal action. These are serious ethical issues, and I don't think we should dismiss them.
I don't see how that differs from UseNet, which has for decades allowed anonymous postings, with no editor to stand behind them. If you get libeled on usenet, well, that's just too bad, eh? Post a rebuttal.
And in this case, I don't see how ethical issues enter into it at all. 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.
-Mark
My old friend Delirium wrote:
I don't see how that differs from UseNet, which has for decades allowed anonymous postings, with no editor to stand behind them. If you get libeled on usenet, well, that's just too bad, eh? Post a rebuttal.
The difference is, of course, that when you and I contribute to Wikipedia, we have the ambition to create something more lasting, more reliable than a bunch of Usenet postings. It is still unclear exactly what level of reliability we should expect out of Wikipedia. It is probably lower than what people used to expect of printed encyclopedias in previous centuries, but it should be higher than most arguments thrown around in discussion forums. On its front page, Wikipedia has the ambition to *be* a free encyclopedia, and that might set expectations just a little higher than can be achieved. To the core community the emphasis is on "free," but many outside readers seem to focus on "encyclopedia."
This over-expectation is evident from Seigenthaler's piece, where he writes:
: Wales, in a recent C-Span interview with Brian Lamb, insisted : that his website is accountable and that his community of : thousands of volunteer editors (he said he has only one paid : employee) corrects mistakes within minutes.
I don't know what Jimbo might have said in that interview, but apparently Seigenthaler took it to be some kind of guarantee that every mistake will be corrected within minutes. I doubt that Jimbo would ever promise anything like that.
And in this case, I don't see how ethical issues enter into it at all. If the biography is inaccurate, it should be edited,
The ethical part is that Seigenthaler's biography was not only incorrect but also contained rather serious allegations. We should probably be more careful to check facts when a person is called a criminal. Many other errors can be less important.
Instead of a general requirement on sourcing every fact, I think it would make sense to require sources to such allegations.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org