QUOTE(One @ Tue 8th December 2009, 3:08pm)
And, yeah, Wikipedia is not a defendant as that claim is a loser under Sec. 230.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention earlier in this thread, One:
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 8th December 2009, 2:08am)
Since, by Alison locking down the article
link and considering the article has been "own" by the "the vandal", for some time, and only now, Alison came around to lock it, It could be argued that Alison has exercised an editorial role on Wikipedia, so it can be assumed then Wikipeidia is a "content provider" and as such, 230 don't apply.
As for Brad's question, it's a good one, but I don't think it can be answered generally - it depends on the identity of the injured party, the nature of the postings/rumours, and the extent to which they have permeated the public consciousness. For example, if the rumour is something completely and objectively false, as is the case here, the injured party has a greater interest in having it (and its objective falsity) publicized than if it's something that is essentially false, but based on a truth that is also damaging (for example, if I alleged that somebody sexually assaulted a prostitute when the truth was that he paid for consensual sex). Likewise, individuals with a high level of name recognition are more likely to want the postings/rumours widely publicized than somebody whose name is known only in connection with the postings/rumours.