[WikiEN-l] Experiment on new pages

Wed Dec 7 23:31:34 UTC 2005

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>>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.
>
We don't know what Seigenthaler would have done with the information if 
he had been able to track down the writer.  His promary complaint was 
the incredibly high hurdles he would have had to jump in order to find 
out.  We have no basis to speculate about what he would have done had he 
succeeded in identifying his "biographer."

>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?
>
I'm not an expert in US constitutional law; it's not my country.  
Sometimes it does happen though that one right can interferes with 
others.  Reconciling those rights may lead to limitations on one or the 
other.  I don't think that it would be fair to conclude that free speech 
condones defamation.  Whether actual defamation could be proven cannot 
be established unless the person has the right to face his accuser.

>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 more awareness around the problem, which certainly 
more complex than Wikipedia's involvement in the issue.

Ec