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

[ColScott]

Moderator's Note: A full narrative of this story may be found on our Opinions and Editorials page. However, this thread contains somewhat more detail, if that's even possible.


Let's discuss this lawsuit. Malicious lies intended to damage a reputation? Check. A systematic pattern of abuse- check.

We'll see if WP stays clean... but for certain they will have to reveal the editor. And once one loser editor is taken down, legally, how many more will grow up and run?

[tarantino]

Let's discuss this lawsuit. Malicious lies intended to damage a reputation? Check. A systematic pattern of abuse- check.
We'll see if WP stays clean... but for certain they will have to reveal the editor. And once one loser editor is taken down, legally, how many more will grow up and run?

The Colonel is referring to this TMZ story. Can you get a copy of the filing, Don?

It looks like various non logged in editors have been inserting the same thing for over a year, and almost daily since April.

[Random832]

If whoever is inserting it isn't logged in, then WP doesn't really have anything to reveal - the IP address is out in the open already, so they'll have to go after the ISPs (unfortunately probably open proxies).

It's semi-protected now, anyway. (incidentally, it's so weird to see the year "2010")

[GlassBeadGame]

Let's discuss this lawsuit. Malicious lies intended to damage a reputation? Check. A systematic pattern of abuse- check.
We'll see if WP stays clean... but for certain they will have to reveal the editor. And once one loser editor is taken down, legally, how many more will grow up and run?

The Colonel is referring to this TMZ story. Can you get a copy of the filing, Don?

It looks like various non logged in editors have been inserting the same thing for over a year, and almost daily since April.

If the IP is known discovery can be directed toward the ISP (assuming the IP doesn't identify a firm etc.) If knowing the IP is not sufficient it might be possible to get information via discovery from WMF indicating if that IP has been used by any accounts, then work with that to request what other IPs those accounts have used.

[victim of censorship]

The Comet Livingston on target for an ELE (extinction-level event) on wikipeidia. This guy got money, friends, and will lay to waste the planet Wiki.

Mr. Livingston, if you are reading this... You are doing good for the collective whole by smacking down the wikihellhole, amen to you. My prayers are with you for a successful action against the planet wiki.

[Somey]

The Colonel is referring to this TMZ story. Can you get a copy of the filing, Don?

It looks like various non logged in editors have been inserting the same thing for over a year, and almost daily since April.

The first such entry on WP is dated Oct. 10, 2008, and there's a post from a gossip site called wonfifty.com here, dated three weeks earlier (September 21st, 2008). The poster calls himself "Lee Kaay" (probably not his real name) and has a page on Facebook, where one of his friends is someone calling himself "Ram Sweet" (probably not his real name either), who appears in this revision of the article on WP.

You'd think that with all the attention focused on BLP issues, they would have full-protected the article waaaaaaaay before today, but someone finally did it earlier today, possibly after seeing this thread. Of course, that person reconsidered and decided semi-protection would just fine, thanks, just a minute later.

[Daniel Brandt]

This case illustrates better than many that Wikipedia is an attractive nuisance due to its policy of allowing anyone to edit BLPs. It was protected too late, and scraped all over the web, no doubt, because the Foundation has not dedicated the resources necessary to adequately patrol BLPs.

[Somey]

This case illustrates better than many that Wikipedia is an attractive nuisance due to its policy of allowing anyone to edit BLPs. It was protected too late, and scraped all over the web, no doubt, because the Foundation has not dedicated the resources necessary to adequately patrol BLPs.

Agreed. If there's a significantly better example to come up since the BLP policy was first posted of Wikipedians collectively falling down on the job, failing to protect an article for a ridiculous amount of time, and in the process showing the harsh results of their foot-dragging on Flagged Revisions and their failure to impose an opt-out policy, I haven't seen it.

(That doesn't mean there isn't one, I'm just saying I just haven't seen it.)

[tarantino]

41 of the troublesome edits claiming Lee Dennison was living with Ron come from 212.22.3.8, an IP owned by the Alcohol Recovery Project AKA Foundation66 in London. All of those edits come between 800 and 1900 UTC. Before they fixated on Ron, the same IP was claiming Lee Dennison was the spouse of Danny Dyer.

[Doc glasgow]

One of the problems is that wikipedia has never even well used the limited possibilities it has to stop BLP damage. All it has is semi-protection (which only stops unregistered and newly resisted accounts editing- and is almost worthless against any determined libeller or POV pusher, who only has to let his account warm for 48 hours) and full-protection, which prevents anyone editing (except admins, who are only supposed to in limited circumstances).

What they really should do is:
1) Semi-protect all BLPs as a matter of course

2) Introduce a new level of protection for blp articles which are obviously problematic, or have a history of violations. This new level would allow only admins and those flagged as "BLP trusted" to edit- BLP trusted would require one to have an account for some time and never have been caught in a significant carelessness over BLP.

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

[victim of censorship]

It's going to be a rough year for the Wiki legal dream team. Here is more lawsuits..

GIVE UP THE MAN - PLANET WIKI

[Somey]

I'm not seeing where Lee Dennison Associates has its own website, but there's a page on ukscreen.com which currently contains the following:

Working alongside Lee in London are Jacquie, Jamie, Will and Dean, in New York Ram, Charlie and Lucy and in Paris Claudine and Luc. We also employ a team of casting assistants for each office who work on specific projects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WINTER 2009 UPDATE...PLEASE NOTE Lee is unable to enter into any private and personal correspondance. See casting credits for current work including THE COMPANY OF MEN, NEW YORK I LOVE YOU and DEFYING GRAVITY. Lee is now based with Ron in LA.

(Livingston is (or was) one of the stars of Defying Gravity, basically a soap opera/mystery drama set on a spaceship.)

So if there really is such a company (?), presumably "in New York Ram" would suggest that maybe "Ram Sweet" actually is a real name, or at least a non-internet pseudonym. If he's one of the people spreading this rumor, or even inserting this info into WP himself, then he's apparently one of Dennison's own colleagues and/or employees, assuming he (or Dennison) even exists at all.

[Somey]

Moreover, there is no "Lee Dennison" listed in any of the credits on IMDB for Defying Gravity, New York, I Love You, Alpha Dog, or Vacancy. It appears the entire ukscreen.com page for this person - if he even exists at all - is basically a pack of lies! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

It even says he made his "screen debut" as an actor "alongside Hazel O'Connor in Breaking Glass, but he isn't listed there either.

Basically, according to IMDb, he simply doesn't exist.

Amazing...

[Daniel Brandt]

41 of the troublesome edits claiming Lee Dennison was living with Ron come from 212.22.3.8, an IP owned by the Alcohol Recovery Project AKA Foundation66 in London. All of those edits come between 800 and 1900 UTC. Before they fixated on Ron, the same IP was claiming Lee Dennison was the spouse of Danny Dyer.

That's going to be a tough one. Foundation66 has 200 people on staff. They might not even keep logs of computer use.

[GlassBeadGame]

41 of the troublesome edits claiming Lee Dennison was living with Ron come from 212.22.3.8, an IP owned by the Alcohol Recovery Project AKA Foundation66 in London. All of those edits come between 800 and 1900 UTC. Before they fixated on Ron, the same IP was claiming Lee Dennison was the spouse of Danny Dyer.

That's going to be a tough one. Foundation66 has 200 people on staff. They might not even keep logs of computer use.

Still it is a good start. Remember the wiki software gives exact times of edits which can be compared against schedules to weed out most employees very quickly. Might be a client, I suppose. Confidentiality might make problems then.

[Somey]

Let's dig a little deeper: If we look at the AfD for the BLP on Lee Dennison, we can see that several WP'ers actually did suggest at the time that "Lee Dennison" is a complete hoax.

On that page, the author of that article, the appropriately named Leedennison (T-C-L-K-R-D) , had this to say:

Vanity? Hoax? It would suggest a little reasearch is done befoire casting doubts. The etiquette still states do not "bite" and "assume good faith" which the majority of you have not. Some of you who have commented have displayed a touch of vanity on your own pages and some are rather self indulgent to say the least.

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.

They'll probably want the contents of the deleted article on "Dennison" himself too, I would imagine... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Daniel Brandt]

Still it is a good start. Remember the wiki software gives exact times of edits which can be compared against schedules to weed out most employees very quickly. Might be a client, I suppose. Confidentiality might make problems then.

Foundation66 has had that IP for a while now; at least three different domains that they own have pointed to it:
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer mailserver.foundation66.org.uk.
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer mailserver.rharp.org.uk.
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer dickens.arp-uk.org.

I don't think confidentiality plays much of a role here, because it's most likely an employee. Most companies have policies about improper use of computers by employees. The company might feel that revealing the name of the perp (if they know who it is) will get the company off the hook. Otherwise the question becomes, "Is the company liable for employees who use company resources in a manner that is actionable, and also against company policy?"

If the company was in the U.S., and especially if it was in Florida, the plaintiff could get a judge to order the company to check it's computers for evidence. That happened in the Fuzzy Zoeller case. But this cross-jurisdictional stuff is so messy.

[victim of censorship]

If the company was in the U.S., and especially if it was in Florida, the plaintiff could get a judge to order the company to check it's computers for evidence. That happened in the Fuzzy Zoeller case. But this cross-jurisdictional stuff is so messy.

The lawsuit is in California as well as the corp offices of the Wiki media foundation. Ultimately, the summons and discovery filings will be served at the Wiki's San Francisco offices and jurisdiction will be in California.

[tarantino]

Huh, Cheekychops is also him.

21:31, 19 December 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) blocked Cheekychops (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (User is obsessed with Casting Director Lee Dennison)

[GlassBeadGame]

If the company was in the U.S., and especially if it was in Florida, the plaintiff could get a judge to order the company to check it's computers for evidence. That happened in the Fuzzy Zoeller case. But this cross-jurisdictional stuff is so messy.

I think the court would freely give discovery of employees schedules and whereabouts etc. Patients or clients, maybe less so. Providing the information about a number of innocent employees in order to figure out who is responsible is one thing, providing information about a number of innocent patients is another for the same reason is another.

[Somey]

Huh, Cheekychops is also him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Che...s#Block_warning

Per WP:BIO it is inappropriate to speculate about the personal lives of living people without a full citation to support the claim. You have edited a large number of biographies to insinuate a romantic relationship with a casting director named Lee Denison, to the point where WP:VANDAL and WP:POINT become an issue. If this continues you will be blocked from editing. DurovaCharge! 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This just gets better and better!

Apparently that user also submitted an article about someone named "Harry Dennison" which got speedied. Check out his blog!

[Daniel Brandt]

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.

They'll probably want the contents of the deleted article on "Dennison" himself too, I would imagine... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Lee Dennison Associates, casting director, producer in London

LATER: Oops, sorry, Somey already found this.

[victim of censorship]

Any one have $4.75 to spare?

[Somey]

The website that actually is listed for "Lee Dennison Associates" (leedennisonassociates.com) is owned by notorious domain squatters Navigation Catalyst, Inc., who are also known to run several domains that are malware-infested. (FWIW.)

This is starting to look like one of the most elaborate hoaxes we've seen, IMO. I suppose we should give WP some kudos for at least catching the more blatant aspects of it (i.e., the Lee and Harry Dennison articles themselves), but this should have been flagged as long-running/ongoing abuse or some such thing - whoever it was, he was clearly doing this to more than just one or two BLP articles.

[Daniel Brandt]

I propose that Wikimedia Foundation begin a proper strategy to defend against this suit, on the assumption that the old knee-jerk Section 230 immunity claim dispatched by Godwin will be less convincing this time around. The Foundation should ask David Gerard to make an appointment with Foundation66 chief executive Sally Scriminger. Gerard should show up at the appointed time in his finest costume, and request, on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, that Ms. Scriminger begin a search of any available computer records at Foundation66 that may be relevant to this case.

A good-faith effort by the Foundation is better late than never, perhaps... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[victim of censorship]

A good-faith effort by the Foundation is better late than never, perhaps... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This is what wikipeida is all about... NLT.. or wiki telling the world to "F" off..

I wonder if Ron tried to find resolution to this, only to have the wikileet jack him around for months/years on end?

I would love to see the court filings.

[One]

I don't believe Wikipedia is a defendant in this complaint.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I don't believe Wikipedia is a defendant in this complaint.

Yeah, that was my question. The article rather unhelpfully doesn't tell who the defendant is. But if not the WMF (which I assume is what you meant by "Wikipedia", or you'd have been stating the obvious), who?

[One]

It's going to be a rough year for the Wiki legal dream team. Here is more lawsuits..

GIVE UP THE MAN - PLANET WIKI

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

Sarc: I wanted to revise that. I believe it's a John Doe defendant. The suit is a means to discovery of the defendant's identity.

This post has been edited by One:

[GlassBeadGame]

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

They could always amend the complaint to conform with discovery. It might be good strategy to secure WMF's cooperation first. Still, more likely they will stick with user defendant(s). Challenges to Section 230 immunity could be a thankless task. It would probably be avoided unless it was one of their client's objectives.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Still ,more likely they will stick with user defendant(s).

At risk of disgracing law students everywhere...the article says that the lawsuit's been filed. How is that possible if he's sticking with user defendant(s) and doesn't know who those are?

(In my defense, I don't take civil procedure until next semester.)

[One]

Still ,more likely they will stick with user defendant(s).

At risk of disgracing law students everywhere...the article says that the lawsuit's been filed. How is that possible if he's sticking with user defendant(s) and doesn't know who those are?

(In my defense, I don't take civil procedure until next semester.)

John Doe defendants.

I guess law students in Canada aren't familiar with autoadmit.com aka xoxohth, and the suits resulting from that "law school discussion" forum? That might be to your credit, or perhaps it's a generational thing. Good for you. Degenerate forum.

This post has been edited by One:

[GlassBeadGame]

At risk of disgracing law students everywhere...the article says that the lawsuit's been filed. How is that possible if he's sticking with user defendant(s) and doesn't know who those are?

(In my defense, I don't take civil procedure until next semester.)

File a "John Doe" type action, describing the defendant through their actions. This give you access to the discovery needed to fill out the complaint more fully.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I guess law students in Canada aren't familiar with xoxohth? That might be to your credit, or perhaps it's a generational thing. Good for you. Degenerate forum.

I can't imagine it's worse than lawstudents.ca, which consists mostly of people bragging about their LSAT scores while denigrating everybody else's approach to everything. I haven't been there in a while, so I'm not sure if they've finally added a forum where people can post pictures of their penises next to rulers, but that would really save a lot of words.

Anyway, I'll stop now, lest I be the cause of two thread splits in one week.



Moderator's note: TOO LATE! Posts involving the Section 230 ramifications of the Livingston lawsuit were split to this thread, for the sake of clarity. Also, because we like pie.

[Daniel Brandt]

Wikipedia and the scraper situation: Libel wants to be free!

Google search for:
"Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison"

Ron Livingston Info | Facebook
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.facebook.com/pages/Ron-Livingston/63536163026?v=info - Cached

Ron Livingston - SideReel
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.sidereel.com/Ron_Livingston - Cached - Similar

Ron Livingston gossip & pictures
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
gossip24.com/Celebrity/Ron-Livingston/201.html - Cached

Ron Livingston
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.filmjamr.com/wiki/CAST/edit/81056/Ron-Livingston - Cached

Ron Livingston
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
filmjamr.com/wiki/CAST/edit/81056/Ron-Livingston - Cached

Ron Livingston Biography, Profile, Filmography, Discography and ...
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.celebritygenius.com/Ron-Livingston/biography.html?title=HBO

About | in Northwest England UK
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.nw4u.co.uk/about?view=mediawiki&article=Ron_Livingston

Boston University School of Theology Archives
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
sthweb.bu.edu/archives/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&article=Ron_Livingston

Contents
This site may harm your computer.
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.menopause-natural-remedies.com/index.php?q=Ron_Livingston

Europe train: Channel tunnel and eurostar tunnel are here on ...
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
europe-train.net/europe-ticket-train/travel-by-train-in-europe/
london-paris-brussel-amsterdam/channel-tunnel-general-informations/
europe-ticket-train.html?europe-train-tickets=Ron_Livingston

Ron Livingston
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.carstock.ru/Dictionary/Ron_Livingston - Cached

Ron Livingston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Optimized for ...
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
wikipedia.7val.de/wiki/Ron_Livingston

Ron Livingston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
wiki.modis.su/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Livingston.html - Russia

All about defying gravity tv series glued for you by GlueText.com ...
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www-d.gluetext.com/content/d/defying/defying_gravity_tv_series.html


Yahoo has this one that Google doesn't:

Celebrities / Ron Livingston - entertainment news, celebrity ...
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.movie-collection.com/celebs/ron-livingston.html - 52k


Bing has this one that Google and Yahoo don't:

Ron Livingston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
tc2sc.mojolingo.xuite.net/m2m-0000/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Livingston

[Somey]

Moderator's note: This was posted prior to the thread split.

I fear that Mr. Victim's enthusiasm for the idea of a major celebrity lawsuit against Wikipedia/WMF has shifted the focus of this thread away from where it should be. The fact is, if this story breaks out into the mainstream media, it could be at least as big and embarrassing as the Siegenthaler incident, and will essentially bear out the futility of WP users in their (somewhat) tireless efforts to enforce BLP policy, which will effectively be proven to be simply not good enough.

I understand that not all of us here wish to see WP embarrassed in this regard, but it seems fairly clear that what happened here was a lack of central oversight, a complete failure to flag an ongoing problem for what it actually was, and an almost ludicrous failure, if not refusal, to fully (or even "semi-") protect an article that obviously needed it, for a ridiculously long period of time.

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!

[taiwopanfob]

If whoever is inserting it isn't logged in, then WP doesn't really have anything to reveal - the IP address is out in the open already, so they'll have to go after the ISPs (unfortunately probably open proxies).

Well, no. If I was the lawyer, my demand to the WMF would include the IP numbers making the edits, as well as any links they have to established users or any other identifying data WMF has, plus some kind of certification that the data is accurate and complete (that is, includes any and all edits, including those not currently visible), and all this under penalty of perjury, blah blah.

The next letter would be about removing all the libel completely from view. I'd simply demand the actual edits be physically removed from the databases -- not just a "delete" flag being set, but gone as in gone for good.

It's semi-protected now, anyway.

Yeah! So I can bury a bunch of anti-personnel mines in your front yard, and when you complain, I'll just put a sign up that says "warning! mine field!". Problem solved! (Not.)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Che...s#Block_warning

That's right...this seemed to ring a bell.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I understand that not all of us here wish to see WP embarrassed in this regard...

Who do you suppose doesn't? I'm clearly pro-Wikipedia, and I don't want to see section 230 immunity pierced in a way that would jeopardize the WMF's viability, but I would love to see the Foundation get embarrassed enough (during fundraising season, no less!) that it takes action on the BLP front of the kind that The Community is too ponderous and unwieldy to take. I suspect that most of the pro-Wikipedians here agree with me on that, though I stand open to correction.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

I understand that not all of us here wish to see WP embarrassed in this regard...

Who do you suppose doesn't? I'm clearly pro-Wikipedia, and I don't want to see section 230 immunity pierced in a way that would jeopardize the WMF's viability, but I would love to see the Foundation get embarrassed enough (during fundraising season, no less!) that it takes action on the BLP front of the kind that The Community is too ponderous and unwieldy to take. I suspect that most of the pro-Wikipedians here agree with me on that, though I stand open to correction.

Let's hope this opens the community's eyes to the fact that not all BLP vandalism is drive-by. The community has been resistant to implementing safeguards against the long term stuff--sometimes angrily so.

Maybe this would bring new life to dead trees. A generous opt-out really would be a step in the right direction.

[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:

[Obesity]

Huh, Cheekychops is also him.

Not Cheekychops!!!!!!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/noooo.gif)

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) 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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

(IMG:http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/829/14bopkj.jpg)

[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....