[WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

[doc]

Slim Virgin wrote:
> On 3/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 30/03/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And the assets of all the individuals involved would be pursued, as
>>> would the assets of the new foundation. It would get very messy, would
>>> cost a fortune, and would go on for years if someone determined and
>>
>> Um, before you speak in quite such apocalyptic terms of the legal d00m
>> that shall rain down upon Wikimedia if it continues its present course
>> ... has the Foundation actually spoken on the subject?
>>
>> I believe the last I heard from an actual Florida lawyer on the
>> subject was that we would most likely *not* be promptly liable in this
>> manner. Which is why the golfer claiming defamation went after the
>> owner of the IP the libel was posted from - he knew damn well that
>> suing the Foundation directly would fall at the first hurdle.
>>
>> If you wish to continue putting forward this view of likely legal
>> apocalypse, please substantiate it in a manner that answers Brad's
>> previous posting on the subject.
>>
> The issues will be judged by the courts, not by lawyers, and a lot
> will depend on how much money the plaintiff is willing to spend
> arguing his case, as well as which jurisdictions he initiates the
> complaint in, what his complaint is, and what he wants. All I'm
> arguing is that we shouldn't rest on our laurels.
> 
> What we should be asking is whether what we're doing is reasonable. Is
> it reasonable to host pages about living persons that can be edited by
> any anonymous person of any age in the world, when we have no clear
> way of patrolling those pages to make sure anything negative or unfair
> is removed immediately? And when, even when such pages are spotted,
> getting rid of the bad stuff often involves a giant fuss, with admins
> unsure of what action they're allowed to take, because if they go too
> far they risk being desysopped?
> 
> My argument is that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would not find this
> reasonable.
> 
> If you want me to address Brad's previous posting, I'll certainly try
> if you show me where it is.
> 
> Sarah
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 
I don't know Florida Law - but if my knowledge of UK law would say that 
if harm is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an action, and it is 
reasonable to take steps to prevent it, then a failure to do so is 
culpable negligence. We know the harm, we could do something, but we don't.

But I say again, legal concerns are not the biggest worry.

There is publicity. How long before the media get wind of a case of some 
innocent person who gets screwed by Wikipedia? Stressful 
reputation-wrecking libels lie for weeks - John Doe eventually sees them 
and complains - the complaint lies for days on OTRS - the material is 
removed - but nothing credible done to prevent its replacement three 
days later. - Then how do we fancy the headline: "Wikipedia-induced 
suicide: in a final note John Doe blames the on-line encyclopedia"?

Then forget about the publicity and ask yourself about the ethics of all 
of this. As a byproduct of the encyclopedia, we are hurting real people, 
can we not do more to prevent it?