[Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia

Wed Nov 30 18:35:43 UTC 2005

Mark wrote:

>And in this case, I don't see how ethical issues enter into it at all. 

Like this: deciding what you are going to say and what you aren't going
to say is on some level an ethical or moral decision.  Similarly,
deciding what you are going publish and what you aren't going to publish
is an ethical or moral decision.  Now, we can deny this, but denial
doesn't make it so.  In the case of the offended party in USAToday, WP
(whoever that is) facilitated the publication of arguably libelous
statements. Those statements harmed that individual. I can't speak for
you, but this makes me uncomfortable.

>If the biography is inaccurate, it should be edited, and in fact anyone
(including the    
>offended person) can do so.  The ability to sue whoever first made it
inaccurate is 
>superfluous.

Maybe, but as someone said earlier, what if he hadn't found the article?
What if it had seriously damaged his reputation? What if this damage
extended to his ability to make a living and support his family?  The
point about slander and libel is that the damage it does is very hard to
undo.  Would correcting the article get this man his reputation back? I
doubt it.

The basic problem here is that no one stands behind the factual claims
on Wikipedia--no publishers, no editors, no authors, just some amorphous
and constantly changing "community." I should add that I say this as a
*big fan* of WP. It worries me.

Best, 

Marshall Poe
The Atlantic Monthly
www.memorywiki.org