[Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia

[Delirium]

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