QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 8th December 2009, 12:40pm)
This thread began by discussing wiki and other online postings that Ron Livingston considers defamatory and damaging to him. To what extent is it in Mr. Livingston's interest for critics of Wikipedia and other websites to ensure that extensive publicity is given to the objectionable postings and rumors that were spread about him, even if the postings and rumors were now to cease?
This is a question of general application. I suspect, for example, that far more publicity has been given to Liskula Cohen's application to compel Google to identify the malicious blogger who wrote about her, than was ever given to the original postings. Similar, more public attention has surely been drawn to John Siegenthaler's outrage about the false Wikipedia edits about him than the edits themselves ever received. (In the latter case, I do gather that this was fully known to and understood by Mr. Siegenthaler; perhaps this is so for Mr. Livingston and Ms. Cohen as well.)
I am sure that my raising this question will be portrayed by some as "trying to cover up a big problem for Wikipedia." That is not my agenda, and in any event, the identity of the person raising the question here is not really important. I'd prefer responses that look at this issue from the point of view of the injured individual himself or herself.
You are taking the same position that Jimbo took with respect to Seigenthaler. Here is a
two-minute MP3 audio of an interview of Jimbo by an Australian journalist. Jimbo essentially blames Seigenthaler for a situation that is the fault of Wikipedia. I dare you to criticize Jimbo's comments at the end this audio clip.
Seigenthaler was outraged for over a year after his
USA Today editorial. I spoke with him occasionally on the phone. He gave anti-Wikipedia speeches on college campuses. When I pointed out Jimbo's comment in this clip to him, he was furious.
Why don't you try being furious at the stupidity of Wikipedia's non-policies, and its general irresponsibility, instead of bending the finger of shame so that it points in Wikipedia Review's direction?
And don't forget that the Livingston libel edits have already been scraped all over the web, and no one will be able to get all of it taken down. I gave specific links proving this earlier in this thread. What does Wikipedia propose to do about that?
The perpetrator of the Livingston edits needs to be identified and located. He's a serious threat to civil society, whereas Seigenthaler's perpetrator was a guy in an office on a slow day who decided to try out Wikipedia for laughs.
My guess is that Livingston's attorney needs help. The combined talents of WR readers, particularly the one or two dozen who know the web and know how to use search engines, is something that most attorneys do not possess. They don't even know who to call once they recognize this, because licensed investigators don't often know as much about the workings of the web as some of the WR members reading this thread. Finally, when it comes to web searching on something this complex, you need a couple dozen people doing it simultaneously and everyone sharing what they find. That's just the way it is.