![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
lilburne |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Chameleon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 890 Joined: Member No.: 21,803 ![]() |
Court orders hand over of identity of anonymous wikipedia editors.
http://lawkipedia.com/social-networking/id...-amendment.html libel not covered by 1st - apparently. |
![]() ![]() |
Kelly Martin |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Bring back the guttersnipes! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 3,270 Joined: From: EN61bw Member No.: 6,696 ![]() |
I think it's a matter of time before someone in the UK gets their ass sued into oblivion for editing Wikipedia, and shortly after that there will be no UK editors of Wikipedia left, once all of them realize that they're totally vulnerable there to defamation claims.
It'll take longer to break the shield in the US, but eventually that'll happen to. The difference between Wikipedia, IMO, and random blogs, forums, and Twitter is that the latter are all "take it as you find it" random junk with no inherent credibility, while the former holds itself forth as a trusted authority by claiming to be an encyclopedia, and eventually that distinction is going to make a difference somewhere. If you want to wear the uniform, you have to walk the beat, as it were. |
Somey |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 11,816 Joined: From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 ![]() |
The difference between Wikipedia, IMO, and random blogs, forums, and Twitter is that the latter are all "take it as you find it" random junk with no inherent credibility, while the former holds itself forth as a trusted authority by claiming to be an encyclopedia, and eventually that distinction is going to make a difference somewhere. Exactly what I've been thinking - and what's more, it's actually very difficult for someone with little or no knowledge of the software to figure out precisely who put what into an article, and when (much less why). Whereas, if a falsehood is clearly presented as the opinions/claims of a single individual, right there on the page (as it would be in a forum like this one), then even if that individual is posting under a silly-sounding screen name (like "Somey," for example), the claim is much less likely to be believed by the credulous and the effect is much less damaging. The fear, then, is that politicians aren't going to make that distinction, or anything even close. We can talk about case law and precedent all we want, but at least in the United States, if the politicians pass something and the President signs it and it then makes it past constitutional review, it's the law - and the judges simply have to follow it, no matter how liberal-minded they might be personally about online anonymity. The main reason things are the way they are now is because the law is vague, easily (mis)interpreted, and waaay behind the current state of technology - and perhaps more importantly, judges are (generally speaking) a little harder to buy off. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |