On 12/6/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/6/05, BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
If we
diagnose what went wrong in the Seigenthaler case, this seems like
a very opportune place to try a small change of policy.
1. First, the Seigenthaler article was created by an anon.
What does that have to do with anything? Please assume good faith. The
person who wrote the text might have gotten Seigenthaler mixed up with
another person who might actually have been suspected of being a
Soviet spy etc. A registered user could aswell have made the same
mistake.
I think not allowing unreferenced articles would be a great help too.
I bet the anon didn't provide any source (or they would've discovered
their own mistake if it was one).
Mgm
Did the article even say he was suspected as being a Soviet spy? Is
everyone here sure that that isn't true? I'm sure someone somewhere
sometime suspected the guy of doing something. I don't see anything
remotely approaching libel in the USA Today article. That's probably
one of the reasons Seigenthaler hasn't yet proceeded with the John Doe
lawsuit.
And by the way, if that user *was* logged in when she created the
article, then Seigenthaler would have to get two subpoenas instead of
one. First he'd have to get one to obtain the IP address from
Wikipedia (hopefully the foundation wouldn't give away private
personal information without a court order). Then he'd have to get
another one from BellSouth. By not logging in, the author is *less*
anonymous, not more.
So it really doesn't make much sense to say "the Seigenthaler article
was created by an anon." Might as well say "the Seigenthaler article
was created by a BellSouth customer", or "the Seigenthaler article was
created by someone using a computer in the United States", or "the
Seigenthaler article was created by someone using ADSL".
Anyway, whatever, it's just an experiment, and not really that big of
a deal anyway.
Anthony