On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:38:48PM -0800, Axel Boldt wrote:
I don't think it affects us: the reasoning of the
court was that
Matchmaker.com is partly responsible for the content because they
partly created it, by providing the user with a long series of yes/no
questions and targeted essay questions to produce the ad. But the
Wikipedia non-profit doesn't do anything like that. Any harmful content
posted on Wikipedia was created completely independently by the
(ab)user. All the prodding they got from us was a textbox and a
blinking cursor.
More realistic scenario: somone puts something defamatory on. Another
person tries to remove it. Rest of Wikipedia dogpiles on person doing
the removing, forming a "consensus" that the information should remain
in. Said person is then banned by Jimbo for his edits. I think the
case would be pretty clear that the Wikipedia as a group, and Jimbo
Wales in particular, had "taken responsibility" for the content at that
point.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw(a)reactor-core.org
Webpage:
http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2