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?

[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!

[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

[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.

[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.