On 9 Apr 2007 at 11:32, Seth Finkelstein <sethf(a)sethf.com> wrote:
My view is that I'm not going to go on a legal
crusade over
my own issues with Wikipedia - that for biographies of living people,
it's an attractive nuisance and a weapon of asymmetrical warfare.
But I sure do think it's a problem that needs fixing.
You and Brandt both like to call Wikipedia an "attractive nuisance",
but that phrase has a precise legal meaning, as I recall from my high
school senior elective in law and have refreshed my memory here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
Something is an attractive nuisance, legally speaking, if it is
attractive to children and presents an "unreasonable risk of death or
serious bodily harm" to those who are attracted to it and are too
young and inexperienced to realize the danger.
In the case of Wikipedia, the alleged potential harm is to third
parties, not to those who are attracted to the site; the age of the
editors isn't particularly relevant; and the possible harm is more
likely to be emotional than physical. It would take a pretty
adventurous judge to stretch the doctrine that far.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site:
http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips:
http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
http://domains.dan.info/