[WikiEN-l] Re: legal liability issues

[Sheldon Rampton]

Hi, all. I've been corresponding with an attorney about some issues 
pertaining to the Disinfopedia. He has some concern about whether we 
might be legally liable for its content. Specifically, could we be 
sued for libel or slander if someone posts false information there?

I think this issue is substantially the same for Disinfopedia as it 
is for Wikipedia, since we both use the same software and editing 
rules (although the editorial standards are slightly different). I'm 
hoping therefore that someone here can tell me what discussions have 
taken place about this issue already and where I might go for further 
information.

Here's what the attorney wrote in his message to me:

>The disinfopedia thing looks like a cool use of web technology -
>but I don't understand how you'll prevent all kinds of wackos
>from screwing around with the text.

I responded by saying (edited here for brevity):

That was my reaction when I first heard about the Wikipedia web site 
(www.wikipedia.org). In practice, though, it works pretty well. In 
reality, most people behave honorably and appropriately. They far 
outnumber the wackos, and people who engage in vandalism are quickly 
detected and banned. ... I would add that even "wackos" can sometimes 
make useful contributions (depending, of course, on how you define 
"wacko"). ...

The key point here is that since everyone who visits the site can 
*edit* as well as *read* articles, errors and deliberate 
disinformation should get detected and fixed quickly. This approach 
has worked quite well in developing open source software such as the 
Linux operating system, and it seems to work well for Wikipedia.

Of course, we can't expect 100% accuracy, but that's not our goal. 
Our goal is to create a useful and *largely* accurate tool for use in 
analyzing and understanding propaganda. This project is still 
experimental and in its infancy, but I'm hopeful that we'll be able 
to meet and surpass the level of accuracy found in the mainstream 
U.S. news media.

The attorney then responded further:

>  Thanks for such a detailed answer; very interesting. Of course I agree that
>  some so-called wackos will provide good info. As a lawyer I'm most
>  concerned that you not get in a situation where there's slander going on and
>  you could be accountable for it.

[SNIP]

>  I think your website structure looks on first appearance to have a greater
>  degree of control (oversight/endorsement of content) than some others, and
>  therefore I'd expect a greater potential for liability exposure. I haven't
>  mined my way down the site to see your caveats etc.  just got this
>  impression on a quick look. No experience or insights other than that.

Comments, anyone?
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------