![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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 ![]() |
62A Am. Jur. 2d Privacy § 128:
QUOTE The false-light claim is closely allied with an action for defamation, and the same considerations apply to each. For both actions the matter publicized must be in fact false, it must be "published" or communicated to third parties, and the publication must be made with some degree of fault on the part of the originating party. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E (1977): QUOTE One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (B) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. [B]Comment: a. Nature of Section. The form of invasion of privacy covered by the rule stated in this Section does not depend upon making public any facts concerning the private life of the individual. On the contrary, it is essential to the rule stated in this Section that the matter published concerning the plaintiff is not true. 50 Am. Jur. 2d Libel and Slander § 27: QUOTE The burden of proving falsity rests upon the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff cannot prove the falsity of a particular statement, the statement will not support an action for defamation. At common law, however, a defendant had the burden of proving the truth of a defamatory statement as an affirmative defense. United States Supreme Court cases have declared a new rule requiring the plaintiff to prove falsity in cases where damages are sought for speech of public concern, at least in cases with media defendants; the lower courts have extended the Supreme Court's ruling to non-media defendants. This post has been edited by Toledo: |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |