On 4/21/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 21/04/06, Tony Sidaway
<f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
liability for publication by agents of the
provider. A Wikipedia
administrator who uses his special powers to publish defamatory
content or copy copyright-infringing content would tend to advance the
case against Wikipedia for third-party liability.
That would all hinge on whether a "Wikipedia administrator" represents
Wikipedia in any respect. I don't think they do, not more than any
editor does. Taken to its conclusion, you would be saying that user A
writes something horrible on Wikipedia, user B (possibly an admin if
you like) then publishes that in print in 50 magazines, and user A
deletes the horrible remark. Wikipedia is liable for user B's actions?
Legally liable? I would assume not, since most admins have no formal
relationship to the Foundation. It would probably depend on whether
Wikimedia could simultaneously argue that (a) deleting material --
where admins could still access it -- qualified as no longer
publishing it and (b) Wikimedia is not responsible for the actions of
admins who obtain that material.
I would think that a) isn't really necessary in the US, because truth
is a defense to libel. So as long as it is made clear that "deleted"
versions are not necessarily factual articles, but simply a copy of
information which used to be in the database, I don't see how there
can be a claim of libel.
Also, the phrasing "no longer publishing it" implies that Wikimedia at
one time *did* publish it. But that's most likely not true.
Anthony