[Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia

Wed Nov 30 19:46:23 UTC 2005

Mark wrote:
>The problem with this view is that Wikipedia by nature cannot "decide" 
>what to publish---we "publish" anything that anyone posts,
automatically and without review, because that >is how wikis work.  What
we *continue* to publish is the result of the consensus of editors.

Well, yes and no.  True, the WP community doesn't control the posting of
content, so "it" (whatever it is) can't decide, initially.  But (and let
me stress, I'm no lawyer), there is something and someone behind WP: the
Wikimedia Foundation and Jimmy Wales.  I'm not sure what the *exact*
relationship between the Foundation, Wales and WP is, but I would guess
that in the case of a suit the Foundation and Wales would be named as
defendants, for they in effect publish WP.

>I don't, in general, see a problem with this.  If something is
incorrect in any way, it should be 
>corrected or removed (whether it is libelous or not is
irrelevant---non-libelous misinformation has no 
>place either).  The "what if [x]" scenarios seem pretty far-fetched.

"Should" is the operative word here. Yup. The problem is that such
misinformation, often, is not changed. WP has one of the same problems
as communism: everything is everyone's responsibility, so everything is
no one's responsibility. So what "should" be done often isn't. Far
fetched?  I imagine Mr. Seigenthaler has already contacted his lawyer
(but I hope not).

Best, 

Marshall Poe
The Atlantic Monthly
www.memorywiki.org