On 4/21/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
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.
That would all hinge on whether a "Wikipedia administrator" represents Wikipedia in any respect. I don't think they do, not more than any editor does. Taken to its conclusion, you would be saying that user A writes something horrible on Wikipedia, user B (possibly an admin if you like) then publishes that in print in 50 magazines, and user A deletes the horrible remark. Wikipedia is liable for user B's actions?
Legally liable? I would assume not, since most admins have no formal relationship to the Foundation. It would probably depend on whether Wikimedia could simultaneously argue that (a) deleting material -- where admins could still access it -- qualified as no longer publishing it and (b) Wikimedia is not responsible for the actions of admins who obtain that material.
I would think that a) isn't really necessary in the US, because truth is a defense to libel. So as long as it is made clear that "deleted" versions are not necessarily factual articles, but simply a copy of information which used to be in the database, I don't see how there can be a claim of libel.
Also, the phrasing "no longer publishing it" implies that Wikimedia at one time *did* publish it. But that's most likely not true.
Anthony