[WikiEN-l] Why the uproar over wikitruth

[Ray Saintonge]

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>On 4/21/06, Molu <loom91 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>  I can't see how reposting of our content will make us legally more liable than we already were.
>>    
>>
>Well I don't think this is the way the law is likely to see it.  In
>the famous 1990s Prodigy case, an information provider that policed
>its forums in much the same way that Wikipedia polices its content was
>found to be a publisher of information, and thus subject to third
>party liability for content.  Under the Communications Decency Act
>which provides a general exemption from third party liability to
>online information providers, this exemption does not extend to
>liability for publication by agents of the provider.  A Wikipedia
>administrator who uses his special powers to publish defamatory
>content or copy copyright-infringing content would tend to advance the
>case against Wikipedia for third-party liability.
>
The fallacy there is in suggesting that all admins are agents of 
Wikipedia.  There is nothing in any description of admins that allows 
them to do anything on any site outside of a particular project.  A 
Wikipedia admin does not thereby receive the right to be an admin on any 
sister project or even on a Wikipedia in any other language.  Perhaps 
you should review the meaning of "agent".

>This has not been tested in court, but it would be very expensive to
>test it and Wikipedia probably would prefer to spend more of its money
>on equipment and technicians than on teams of attorneys.
>
We do ourselves as much harm by presuming that there is a legal case 
there.  Sound risk management policies do not require that we stiffle 
ourselves by allowing for every conceivable far-fetched possibility.

Ec