![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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. |
Malleus |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 1,682 Joined: From: United Kingdom Member No.: 8,716 ![]() |
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. I think that's very unlikely. How many editors do you think have the assets to make it worthwhile for a plantiff to sue them in a UK civil court? Very few or just none? As Robert Maxwell so ably demonstrated, UK libel law is a plaything of the rich, a tool to suppress anything they'd prefer others not to know about. In reality it has very little if anything to do with spreading lies. But equally those without significant assets are immune to it, and can say pretty much whatever they please. This post has been edited by Malleus: |
RMHED |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 936 Joined: Member No.: 11,716 ![]() |
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. I think that's very unlikely. How many editors do you think have the assets to make it worthwhile for a plantiff to sue them in a UK civil court? Very few or just none? As Robert Maxwell so ably demonstrated, UK libel law is a plaything of the rich, a tool to suppress anything they'd prefer others not to know about. In reality it has very little if anything to do with spreading lies. But equally those without significant assets are immune to it, and can say pretty much whatever they please. Quite a few I'd imagine, given the UK's love of home ownership. |
Malleus |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 1,682 Joined: From: United Kingdom Member No.: 8,716 ![]() |
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. I think that's very unlikely. How many editors do you think have the assets to make it worthwhile for a plantiff to sue them in a UK civil court? Very few or just none? As Robert Maxwell so ably demonstrated, UK libel law is a plaything of the rich, a tool to suppress anything they'd prefer others not to know about. In reality it has very little if anything to do with spreading lies. But equally those without significant assets are immune to it, and can say pretty much whatever they please. Quite a few I'd imagine, given the UK's love of home ownership. And how exactly do you reconcile home ownership with the commonly reported demographics of wikipedia editors? Winning a libel case doesn't give the plaintiff automatic access to any assets owned by the plaintiff's parents. |
Abd |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,919 Joined: From: Northampton, MA, USA Member No.: 9,019 ![]() |
And how exactly do you reconcile home ownership with the commonly reported demographics of wikipedia editors? Winning a libel case doesn't give the plaintiff automatic access to any assets owned by the plaintiff's parents. I'm not completely sure this is true. Parents of minors can be held responsible for the torts of their children.There is also a theory that might be pursued, that if Wikipedia structure fosters and allows and facilitates torts, even if in individual cases, Wikipedia might be held blameless, there might be a cause of action. I certainly would not want to depend on the absence of such liability. What would be interesting would be a legal notice to Wikipedia, on behalf of specific possible plaintiffs, but also providing a general warning. of possible liability if the Foundation continues to leave the "kids" without supervision. Others might then be able to rely upon this warning, if it were properly published. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |