[WikiEN-l] Re: legal liability issues

[Fred Bauder]

The lawyer is right. Potential liability is huge, basically the same as any
publisher. Prepare...

However common sense plays a role here. Consider the situation of anyone
contemplating a lawsuit against you...

Fred

> From: Sheldon Rampton <sheldon.rampton at verizon.net>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:01:30 -0600
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: legal liability issues
> 
> 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
> --------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l