Ron Livingston Lawsuit Discussion, the beginning of the end? Options

[gomi]

But that would involve change, and wikipedia can't change.

I think what you mean is that Wikipedia cannot change for the better. We've seen plenty of change for the worse.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I think what you mean is that Wikipedia cannot change for the better. We've seen plenty of change for the worse.

I actually suspect that what you're characterizing as "change for the worse" is just Wikipedia getting larger. It's not like Wikipedia had a responsible approach to BLPs back in 2003; it's just that it's growth since then has made it's irresponsible approach all the more problematic. Likewise, it's not like it had a reasonable approach to governance when it was first created; it's just that the approach became more obviously unreasonable as the editing community grew. If anything, I think Wikipedia probably has changed incrementally for the better, though I am talking about very small increments.

[ColScott]

I don't believe Wikimedia is a defendant. They're apparently very willing to cooperate with discovery. No skin off their nose.

No skin until they give up one of their own

[One]

I fully expect to see WP'ers (on WP itself) try to hush the whole thing up, minimize it, and/or blame the victim, but like I said before, I don't think we've seen a better example of how the WP system fails due to lack of preventative controls in a long while.

And it's almost Christmas, too!

I'm with Sarcasticidealist here. Most Wikipedians on this site are concerned about BLP. Although we regret that anyone was harmed in this incident, we know that it happens all of the time. We also know that embarrassments like this are a good way to spur action by people capable of making decisions (i.e., not the Wikipedia "community").

However, I should also say that this will not be another Seigenthaler simply because there was already a Seigenthaler. Nor will there be another story like Essjay; some users here perpetually hope that these will be replicated. In order for that to happen, I believe there needs to be some new element in the story.

This post has been edited by One: Sun 6th December 2009, 2:54pm

[Obesity]

Huh, Cheekychops is also him.

Not Cheekychops!!!!!!!!

[Doc glasgow]

I think what you mean is that Wikipedia cannot change for the better. We've seen plenty of change for the worse.

I actually suspect that what you're characterizing as "change for the worse" is just Wikipedia getting larger. It's not like Wikipedia had a responsible approach to BLPs back in 2003; it's just that it's growth since then has made it's irresponsible approach all the more problematic. Likewise, it's not like it had a reasonable approach to governance when it was first created; it's just that the approach became more obviously unreasonable as the editing community grew. If anything, I think Wikipedia probably has changed incrementally for the better, though I am talking about very small increments.

As someone who was in the BLP frontline some years ago, things have very much changed.

Back then, even the notion that uncited material was to be removed was contentious. A few dozen of us were awake to the issues and the amount of flack we took was ridiculous. Using admin tools in defence of BLP was insanely controversial.

Now, most people accept that their is a serious BLP problem. The "freedom of speech" hardliners are marginalised. The problem on wikipedia is not convincing people that "something should be done", it is that when anything that might help a bit is suggested it is defeated by the stupid way wikipedia changes policy. You need 70% - but by the time the BLP-irresponsible minority have combined with the people who say "this particular idea won't help much" and the people who say "I prefer idea x" and the people who say "no need, flagged revisions will sort this", and the people who are opposed because it will cause some pet article to be lost, you've got no chance.

I firmly believe that IF wikipedia had a policy body, things would be better. In the absence of that WMF intervention is the only forlorn hope there is.

[Daniel Brandt]

I'm with Sarcasticidealist here. Most Wikipedians on this site are concerned about BLP. Although we regret that anyone was harmed in this incident, we know that it happens all of the time. We also know that embarrassments like this are a good way to spur action by people capable of making decisions (i.e., not the Wikipedia "community").

However, I should also say that this will not be another Seigenthaler simply because there was already a Seigenthaler. Nor will there be another story like Essjay; some users here perpetually hope that these will be replicated. In order for that to happen, I believe there needs to be some new element in the story.

This is the most disturbing post I've read on WR in a long time. Seigenthaler was four years ago this week. Essjay was almost three years ago. You've been on Wikipedia for nearly six years, watching all this unfold.

And now you are shrugging your shoulders, saying, "Shit happens; I'm just following orders."

A new element might be people like you (and NYB) finding some sort of backbone and standing up to Wikipedia on occasion.

[Doc glasgow]

This is the most disturbing post I've read on WR in a long time. Seigenthaler was four years ago this week. Essjay was almost three years ago. You've been on Wikipedia for nearly six years, watching all this unfold.

And now you are shrugging your shoulders, saying, "Shit happens; I'm just following orders."

A new element might be people like you (and NYB) finding some sort of backbone and standing up to Wikipedia on occasion.

Strangely, I agree.

Most Wikipedians (like me) can shout at the darkness and write essays, but it does little good. Abcom (and Jimbo) for that matter certainly don't have magic wands here, but they do have an enormous soap box. Now, I know enough to know that arbs are genuinely concerned, and that they do what little they think they can to help. However, I'm not convinced by their protestation of impotency, and I'm certainly not convinced that, given the moral imperative here, they should not have been shouting louder and manipulating harder.

Arbcom could force the community to waken up. They could also prod the WMF into action. Sure, it might be a stunt - but we all know that this problem will only be solved when either the community or the WMF is pushed by a crisis. That crisis may be legal or some tragic event that create a PR disaster (someone committing suicide over a wiki-bio?). Arbcom have it in their power to create a crisis or two that needs none of these. Change the policy (no you don't have the power to do it - but do it anyway). Lead and many of us will follow. threaten to resign en masse unless the community agrees some way forward in six weeks. You can focus minds, or you can at least try.

[CharlotteWebb]

threaten to resign en masse unless the community agrees some way forward in six weeks. You can focus minds, or you can at least try.

Note that the community will call your bluff every time, if that matters to anyone.

[Kelly Martin]

Change the policy (no you don't have the power to do it - but do it anyway). Lead and many of us will follow. threaten to resign en masse unless the community agrees some way forward in six weeks. You can focus minds, or you can at least try.

The problem with this idea is that most of the people on ArbCom are there because they enjoy the political gaming that goes with being there. It's not about having and using power; most of them know that using their power too brazenly openly will lead to losing it. It's about the game itself, and the privileged position within the game that goes with their rank. Orchestrating a mass resignation threat just isn't consistent with that; resigning is what you do when you've already lost the game, and threatening to resign just isn't a valid move. It would be rather like a soldier on the battlefield threatening to kill himself unless the enemy agrees to back down.

For many people, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia project, it's a complicated role playing game, and must be analyzed and treated as such. The encyclopedia is, at best, secondary.

Of course, there's also people who are attempting to win the game in the hopes of using the power they think will come with winning the game to control what the encyclopedia says. For the most part, they will find that their efforts are in vain: winning the game doesn't let you control what the encyclopedia says. There are ways to influence what the encyclopedia says, and playing the game is related to that, but those two systems interact in complicated ways and neither is subordinated to the other.

[GlassBeadGame]

threaten to resign en masse unless the community agrees some way forward in six weeks. You can focus minds, or you can at least try.

Note that the community will call your bluff every time, if that matters to anyone.

To my mind the only encouraging developments in the past two years on Wikipedia has been the rapid increase in the scale of the infrastructure under Gardner. Keep in mind that I am only talking about scale and do not approve of the direction it has taken. The worst illustration of this direction is Gardner's selection of Moeller as her #2. Still this development of infrastructure is not unimportant. It is an absolute prerequisite for a responsible WMF. The Wikipedia of Flo-Flo and Danny (not friends, I know) could never even hope to be responsible. They would always have been dominated by an ultra-libertarian "community."

If WMF continues to grow as it has in the past two years it might be able to reshuffle priorities. WMF needs a large cadre of staff working not on PR but program, editorial and content. Perhaps with a staff of 150 or 200 and budget around $20 - 25,000,000/yr. they could could assure high quality content, retain experts as needed, resolve BLP problems, adopt meaningful child protection measures and obtain independent dispute resolution. They might even find the benefits of responsibility are greater than those of immunity. A top 10 website with staffing and budget on this scale is in no way remarkable.

The collapse of the projects most important "community" organ, ArbCom, would serve as an opportunity for WMF assuming more responsibility. It might also result in matters defaulting into the hands of darker and even more irresponsible elements in "the community. In any case an activist ArbCom trying desperately to address the projects problems is only a stop-gap.

[ColScott]

Arbcom could force the community to waken up. They could also prod the WMF into action. Sure, it might be a stunt - but we all know that this problem will only be solved when either the community or the WMF is pushed by a crisis. That crisis may be legal or some tragic event that create a PR disaster (someone committing suicide over a wiki-bio?). Arbcom have it in their power to create a crisis or two that needs none of these. Change the policy (no you don't have the power to do it - but do it anyway). Lead and many of us will follow. threaten to resign en masse unless the community agrees some way forward in six weeks. You can focus minds, or you can at least try.

There is no way forward. The only solution is to shut it down and scatter it to the four winds. The idea that experts don't matter but 12 year old Canadians in their basements do is beyond untenable. There is no fixing something that is one hundred percent fucked from the head on down. What gives any anonymous douchebag the qualifications to write about ME and then call it encyclopedic? The project has failed from the top down. There is no fixing. Even smart guys like Doc are saying things that are NOT WORTH DOING.

On Monday I am forwarding this thread to Livingston's agent, along with similar threads about my experiences. If his lawyer is smart, he can declare a calss action lawsuit on behalf of everyone known and unknown attacked by WP. This is impossible to defend against, will cost them millions and will hopefully be the end of this shitty nightmare.

[victim of censorship]

To my mind the only encouraging developments in the past two years on Wikipedia has been the rapid increase in the scale of the infrastructure under Gardner. Keep in mind that I am only talking about scale and do not approve of the direction it has taken. The worst illustration of this direction is Gardner's selection of Moeller as her #2. Still this development of infrastructure is not unimportant. It is an absolute prerequisite for a responsible WMF. The Wikipedia of Flo-Flo and Danny (not friends, I know) could never even hope to be responsible. They would always have been dominated by an ultra-libertarian "community."

I have been reading and an old saying comes to mind, in regards to the intentions of the wikileet to build the on line monument to the Jimbogod and his dream of "The sum of human knowledge". This project has been a failure due to the lack governance, maturity and respect to the greater whole of the internet (world).

Such intentions and do gooding by the wikileet is just more proof that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Just to summarized the facts from the clouds of wiki love/hope/sekrets/drama...

1. Responsible governance, administrating fair policy, is unknown in Wikipedia. In it's place is cyber world of Somali land, where there is no rule of law, only warlords, gangs and the Darwinian cut.

2. No 1. is enabled and protected by the overly broad interpenetration of section 230. But, the courts may, tighten up the interpenetration, if enough case (especially egregious ones) begin to flow in large numbers in to the courts. The courts will be pressed ( the Lawmakers who right laws will be pressed as well) to stop the injustice caused by the irresponsible wikileet to control their fecal farm of defamation.

3. 230 will be changed/ or pierced, in time and the first defamation lawsuit against wikipedia to win will mark the end of the project. Only one needs to win, and considering the irresponsible wiki leet and the lack of governance, is WILL HAPPEN.

[tarantino]

He has a point, but it's pretty clear that "Lee Dennison" is either not a real person at all, or a self-promoting hoaxster/spammer at best. Moreover, the contents of the AfD will probably come in handy for Livingston's legal team in establishing that WP did virtually nothing resembling "due diligence" in allowing the offending piece of info to be repeatedly added to Livingston's BLP article, not even going so far as to search their own archives.

I'm beginning to agree with Somey. Lee Dennison appears to be an elaborate construct that spans years and hundreds of websites. Poetguy must be looking on in envy.

[carbuncle]

On Monday I am forwarding this thread to Livingston's agent, along with similar threads about my experiences. If his lawyer is smart, he can declare a calss action lawsuit on behalf of everyone known and unknown attacked by WP. This is impossible to defend against, will cost them millions and will hopefully be the end of this shitty nightmare.

ColScott, If you think your experiences are similar to Livingston's, why don't you just get a lawyer yourself and start a class action suit? Presumably you would be part of this class anyway, right? Besides, it would be a good publicity generator for the Wikipedia-themed horror movie you claim to be making...

[Milton Roe]

On Monday I am forwarding this thread to Livingston's agent, along with similar threads about my experiences. If his lawyer is smart, he can declare a calss action lawsuit on behalf of everyone known and unknown attacked by WP. This is impossible to defend against, will cost them millions and will hopefully be the end of this shitty nightmare.

The sourly humorous thing is that when Wiki-Paed-ia does finally get hit with the defamation or child protection lawsuit to end all lawsuits, everybody there from Jimbo to Godwin will say, in unison:

ZOMG, we never even saw this coming!

Following which, will be speeches from all of them, down to the minor WMF functionaries and newly hired PR people, to the effect that the internet is such a wild-west place that new problems like this pop up and can't be predicted. They're like new flu strains. If somebody had actually warned Jimbo early enough, he might have had time to head it off.

As it is, of course now that WMF is aware of the defamation problem, they're working as fast as they can to fix it. There's this new idea called "flagged revisions" for instance. And another one called "semi-protection" where articles can't just be edited by anybody, thus completely preventing vandalism by anonymous accounts to biographies! Clever, no? (Erik Moeller thought of it).

Anyway, courts, be nice to Wikipaedia. They're pioneers like NASA. Remember when that capsule caught fire and burned up all those astronauts? Who knew? You recognize the pioneer as the guy with all the arrows protruding from his back! Godwin, are you taking notes?

[victim of censorship]

There is no way forward. The only solution is to shut it down and scatter it to the four winds. The idea that experts don't matter but 12 year old Canadians in their basements do is beyond untenable. There is no fixing something that is one hundred percent fucked from the head on down. What gives any anonymous douchebag the qualifications to write about ME and then call it encyclopedic? The project has failed from the top down. There is no fixing. Even smart guys like Doc are saying things that are NOT WORTH DOING.

AMEN BRO... Sing it loud.

As i have said many times...

After all that has been said this is the general consensus of WR
and those out side Wikipedia:

1. Wikipedia has no governance to speak of. Its a land of Jungle law.
2. Wikipedia has no respect for people and their works. People are treated on Wikipedia like shit.
3. Wikipedia can not be trusted for accurate information considering the agenda pushing street gangs of wiki.
4. Wikipedia pollutes the internet as well as diminishes scholarship. It floods and pollutes the search engines on the internet and pushes out good scholarship and honest debate in favor of bad scholarship, defamation and bold face intimation and thuggery.
5. Wikipedia needs to be bought under the rules of slander, liable, defamation, and copyright laws.
6. Wikipedia should be stripped of its 501c3 status.

Wikipedia is out of control wild west with out rules, ethics or accountability.

It would be a favor to the body politic to sell the wikipedia domain to more responsible parties (Britannia etc), and purge the servers and sell them to the highest bidder and use the money to feed African children.

[Somey]

Lee Dennison appears to be an elaborate construct that spans years and hundreds of websites. Poetguy must be looking on in envy.

Probably... Basically what Poetguy did was pretend to be a group of females (and two or three males) in order to promote himself, mostly just on Wikipedia. More importantly, he didn't attack other people's BLP's - the idea wouldn't even have occurred to him. His mistake was getting heavily involved with the "community" (including WR), which the guy behind "Lee Dennison" doesn't appear to have done.

Meanwhile, the person behind "Lee Dennison" doesn't seem to be promoting himself at all - this character, as well as the "son," Harry Dennison, are probably completely unrelated to the perpetrator(s). And while they obviously have attacked BLP's, they don't seem to have made any attempt to post new BLP articles about real people at all, unless the attempt(s) were deleted and we therefore haven't seen them. Any WP admins care to check on that...? (Please?)

I don't think there's any question that "Lee Dennison" and "Harry Dennison" are both fake people; the astounding thing is the amount of time the person has been doing this, and the degree of realism with which it's been done. If the person had actually spent some money on it, to set up web hosting and place press releases in non-fact-checked "sources" other than WP, he might have actually gotten away with it.

The fact remains, if you do a name search on IMDB for either of those names, you get doodley-squat. Neither of these "Dennison" people exists, I'm sure of it. From what I'm seeing, he was probably invented for the sole purpose of outing celebrities as gay, whether they actually are/were or not. The "helpful" edits to other WP articles such as Kate Bush (T-H-L-K-D) and Bucks Fizz (band) (T-H-L-K-D) were probably just done to "establish" those two accounts... It wouldn't be surprising if there were more accounts too, possibly several.

[Cedric]

6. Wikipedia should be stripped of its 501c3 status.

I don't know that this view can really be taken as a "general consensus" here, although I am in agreement with it. Unfortunately, however, I think the IRS will strip Scientology of its 501(c )(3) status long before they would ever take any notice of the WMF in this regard (i.e., never).

Fortunately, that issue is becoming moot. The Wikipedia Suicide Squad is on the job.

[Doc glasgow]

On Monday I am forwarding this thread to Livingston's agent, along with similar threads about my experiences. If his lawyer is smart, he can declare a calss action lawsuit on behalf of everyone known and unknown attacked by WP. This is impossible to defend against, will cost them millions and will hopefully be the end of this shitty nightmare.

Whilst I would not cry if you were successful, I doubt it will happen.

I also think you confuse two legitimate criticisms:

1) Wikipedia may be a moronic concept. I suppose that very much depends on one's epistemology. However, there is no law against having a crappy encyclopedia with unreliable articles, nor should there be.

2) That people can write about you with impunity is wrong. That should not be allowed. People who write about other living people should do so my name and be fully accountable in reputation and in law. Yes, people can comment anonymously on other websites, but the proprietors of other websites do not pass off the commentary of anonymous persons as factual.

Mah, having written this, I'm not so sure those criticisms can be differentiated....