On 9 Apr 2007 at 11:32, Seth Finkelstein sethf@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.