Nowhere to hide, libel not covered by 1st Options

[lilburne]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.