This thread began by discussing wiki and other online postings that Ron Livingston considers defamatory and damaging to him. To what extent is it in Mr. Livingston's interest for critics of Wikipedia and other websites to ensure that extensive publicity is given to the objectionable postings and rumors that were spread about him, even if the postings and rumors were now to cease?
This is a question of general application. I suspect, for example, that far more publicity has been given to Liskula Cohen's application to compel Google to identify the malicious blogger who wrote about her, than was ever given to the original postings. Similar, more public attention has surely been drawn to John Siegenthaler's outrage about the false Wikipedia edits about him than the edits themselves ever received. (In the latter case, I do gather that this was fully known to and understood by Mr. Siegenthaler; perhaps this is so for Mr. Livingston and Ms. Cohen as well.)
I am sure that my raising this question will be portrayed by some as "trying to cover up a big problem for Wikipedia." That is not my agenda, and in any event, the identity of the person raising the question here is not really important. I'd prefer responses that look at this issue from the point of view of the injured individual himself or herself.
|