Three weeks after the story of Ron Livingston's lawsuit against "John Doe" for using Wikipedia, Facebook, etc. to spread a gay-rumor hoax was plastered all over the internet, it looks like the media has failed to follow up on the story, and Google still gleefully spreads the defamation. Does that mean Mark Binmore has gotten away with it?

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20091230/r...ness-of-grapes/

I've added a comment there.

It looks like the "tighty whitey" photo of "Lee Dennison" is, in fact, being picked up by Google Images this morning!

Unless they file a new lawsuit in the proper jurisdiction, I think Binmore "gets away with it" in a legal sense. The media is either uninterested in following up on the story, is unaware of the new information, or is perhaps wisely staying away from accusing individuals of libel (or all of the above).

Unless an organised group of internet goons decide to make the world aware of this, I doubt Binmore will even suffer much damage to his reputation. Perhaps if Binmore was saying nasty things about corpulent schlock producer Don Murphy this would happen, but otherwise why would anyone bother? I strongly suspect that someone taking a thorough look into the past efforts of Mark Binmore and Ben Humble would unearth some evidence of dodgy businesses, but such things as reputation don't seem to be a worry to those who make their living scamming others.

Reading this thread brings to mind, ...on a couple of levels..... the scene in "Office Space" where Ron Livingston's character is leaving his apartment to go to work and his neighbor says through the next door wall/door, "Watch your cornhole!" to him.

Are you calling me a goon?

If you're going to piss me off by being an extreme Wikipediot like Binmore did, make sure you don't have an unusual name. My page is number one for Mark Binmore on all of the 58 Google data centers that my program checked.

Maybe Binmore will sue me!

I'm pretty sure he didn't mean you... or any of us, for that matter. Don Murphy, OTOH, actually does have an organized group of internet goons (who will probably be the first to admit that they're "goons"), and I'd have to agree with Mr. Carbuncle - if Livingston wants some sort of revenge against Binmore, that's the way to get it. Even if he pursues the lawsuit and it succeeds, there's no guarantee he'll actually get Binmore to stop. But if you get a whole bunch of people together who know how to get really nasty, and who actually enjoy doing it too, well then.


With whose money?

No, I wasn't calling you a goon. It was actually a poke at Don Murphy and his band of goons (ColScott started the original thread about Ron Livingston's suit). Feel free to ad me to your enemies list, though - having your site as the top Google result is definitely better than some of the things that used to top that search.

Don Murphy's bio hasn't been deleted yet. Now then, exactly who are the "goons" — Murphy's fanboys, or Jimbo's fanboys?

Jimbo shares responsibility with Binmore for what happened to Livingston's bio. Jimbo committed sins of omission with respect to flagged revisions, and is guilty of nonfeasance on the BLP issue generally. Wikipedia cannot be sued, and Jimbo cannot be sued for his sins either. That doesn't mean that he doesn't share responsibility.

Murphy has used colorful language on this board, but he was absolutely right to start that thread on Livingston. Who knows what BLP Binmore might have infected next if he hadn't been exposed?

Let's get our priorities straight around here!

That isn't an either-or question...