![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
biographco |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 104 Joined: From: Los Angeles, CA. Member No.: 1,201 ![]() |
First, I want to thank the editors of the blog and say that there is such a need for this forum about Wikipedia, since this so called "Encyclopedia" is crawled by many other information websites and so many editors on Wikipedia truly have an agenda that is unfair and biased.
My company is a small independent film company and had been on Wikipedia for quite awhile with an article. Our company is a very old company, and has an exemplary reputation. We did not even post the first article but one of the Wiki-members did. The first article was fine and fairly accurate. However, in 2004 after our monument in Hollywood event, one editor appeared and became malicious with intent to harm the reputation of the company. This "Editor" also had a certain group of "Editors" that knew this person or he/she recruited them in an effort to discredit our company, and supply false information. We feel this was a personal attack and intent on harming the company's reputation for certain reasons. At the time, I was not that familiar with Wikipedia guidelines or standards, and one of our VP's was extremely upset and dared to defy this "Editor". This VP who had a previous Wikipedia account was promptly blocked. I admit our VP did go against some Wiki-policies. Our attorney then attempted to call and contact Wikipedia to resolve the issue, but without results. The article was further re-written, including ambiguous information and intentional inclusions to make the company look "Ridiculous" which is actually posted IN WRITING by one of the administrators, yes, that this was their intent and goal. Since this, we have not attempted to change anything, in-process of legal proceedings according to state and federal law. We also noticed that some other members of Wikipedia who were trying to correct the article contacted us on our information. These other editors also discovered that their was malicious intent against us, and were blocked as well by this other coalition of editors determined to discredit the company. This information we know of because of the blocked editors contacting our office. We also was recently hacked and even embezzlement of funds occurred by hacking that coincide with recent Wikipedia activity against the company. This has been already reported to the proper authorities, and we believe it may have been a Wikipedia person involved in this slanderous effort. Unfortunately, anyone attempting to correct the article about us is "Blocked" or "Banned". A monopoly of only a few associated editors now is able to include any false or harmful information without recourse. With this in mind, we have several options that we are in the process of initiating against Wikipedia and the foundation, some of it possibly criminal. It is sad that Wikipedia is a great idea but is monopolized and used for personal and sometimes hateful agendas against others without provocation. We want to make everyone aware of this and maybe this can be stopped before Wikipedia finally pushed too far, and will eventually be shut down for inappropriate activity. Please feel free to check out the Wikipedia article under "American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company" and also read the "Talk" sections as well as the archive sections. We also encourage any kind of input on this subject. |
![]() ![]() |
Toledo |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Neophyte Group: Contributors Posts: 11 Joined: Member No.: 1,212 ![]() |
Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. Here in Ohio, it's also one year. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published.
The statute of limitations on libel (published) or slander (spoken) in the state of Florida, where the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated, is two years. Which part of the article is libelous? |
biographco |
![]() ![]()
Post
#3
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 104 Joined: From: Los Angeles, CA. Member No.: 1,201 ![]() |
Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. Here in Ohio, it's also one year. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published. The statute of limitations on libel (published) or slander (spoken) in the state of Florida, where the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated, is two years. Which part of the article is libelous? The article is libelous because it presents inaccurate information as "Facts". Also it is intentional to use certain inclusions as to purposely dicredit the company. Quote from Wikipedia "Talk": "I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)" This is just ONE verified statement in writing of the intentions. There are MANY more. Thanks! Thomas I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad." This is just one from Wikipedia "Talk" page... "I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)" Thanks for all comments! |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |