[WikiEN-l] Experiment on new pages

Wed Dec 7 12:25:59 UTC 2005

On 12/6/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> BJörn Lindqvist 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 certainly had no idea who this Seigenthaler dude was and
> >wouldn't have been able to spot the errors in the article. Now I know
> >- he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge. What was written about
> >him on Wikipedia is peanuts compared to how the printed press
> >regularily treats famous persons. He should consider himself lucky if
> >involvement in the Kennedy assassination is the worst be has been
> >accused for.
> >
> It seems to me that these comments are far more libellous than what was
> in the article.  At least the article stated that the charges were found
> to be in error.  Do you have any proof at all for your statement that
> "he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge."  A truly litigious person
> would have fun with that comment, and the fact that it was made on the
> mailing list would be no excuse.
>
> Ec

>From what I can gather, neither the article nor these comments were
libellous (but the fact that I don't have a copy of the article limits
my ability to speak with regard to it).  Since you think these
comments are "more libellous" than what was in the article, maybe
Siegenthaler should write another article blasting Wikipedia and
whinging about how he isn't able to sue BJörn or anyone else (he leave
out the paragraph on anonymity this time).  And then Jimbo can go on
CNN and say that he is wiping, this post and all the others that
contain the allegedly libellous statement, from the archive website.

I suppose you could say Siegenthaler isn't litigious, because he
hasn't sued anyone, at least not yet (there's still time and he's left
it open whether or not he's going to).  But frankly that seems to be
more because he is smart (and hired smart lawyers to consult with him)
than that he doesn't want to sue anyone.  The last paragraph of his
rant in USA Today (and part of the middle one) is about how he has
"little legal recourse".  His lawyers already told him he can't sue
Wikipedia, he can't sue the ISP, and though he hasn't admitted it they
probably told him he can't successfully sue John Doe either (not that
it matters, as John Doe likely doesn't have the kind of deep pockets
that could pay for just Siegenthaler's lawyers anyway).  As
Siegenthaler said, "Congress effectively has barred defamation in
cyberspace."  Now why complain about that if you're not interested in
suing someone?

Frankly, I really don't get it.  Siegenthaler is supposedly a defender
of free speech rights.  Doesn't he realize that making ISPs liable for
content spoken by others would stifle free speech?  Doesn't he agree
that the ability to speak anonymously is absolutely critical to free
speech?

"Major communications Internet companies are bound by federal privacy
laws that protect the identity of their customers, even those who
defame online. Only if a lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would
BellSouth give up the name."  Is Siegenthaler really so dense to have
unintentionally left out the word "allegedly" before "defame online". 
Federal privacy laws *don't* protect the identity of those who defame
online.  But you've got to convince a judge that the person *actually
defamed online* before she's going to allow you to force the ISP to
name names.  Unless you happen to be George W. Bush, a mere allegation
of something isn't enough to violate privacy rights, you have to
actually convince a judge that your allegation is correct.

What does Siegenthaler want?  Does he want Wikipedia to stop allowing
volunteer contributors?  Does he want Congress to remove the
protections given to ISPs for merely carrying content produced by
others?  Does he want to take away the ability of Internet speakers to
be anonymous?  Does he want to start licensing or bonding people who
produce content to distribute over the Internet?

Maybe he just wants Wikipedia to get it right 100% of the time.  Or
maybe he just wants Wikipedia to stop calling itself an encyclopedia
(because it's really just a common carrier - an ISP).  I could
actually see his point there, though I'm not sure if I agree and it's
almost definitely not going to happen anyway.  Either way, if his only
beef is with Wikipedia then why include the other two paragraphs about
anonymity and lack of legal recourse.

Anthony