Hi,
I am not saying that, a law student suggested that we look at the complexity and consider
the potentials. I do not think there is actual settled case law that would clearly answer
the question of whether or not the Wikipedia Foundation can be held liable for defamation
for material posted on the site. I rather suspect that a good case could be argued that
it was. An equally good case could be argued that it was not. The case would be stronger
against Wikipedia if it failed to post clear guidelines regarding defamation and the
obligation of every editor to alert admins to potential defamatory text, remove material
likely to be defamatory, and to edit with some knowledge as to what generally is
considered defamatory. Some of this is already being done. It should be expanded.
Please read these posts more carefully, they are complicated. Please do not bite my head
off.
-Chip
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Anthony DiPierro
Sent: Thu 12/8/2005 10:17 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Libel law
On 12/8/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet(a)publiceye.org> wrote:
Given Wikipedia's editing policy, it is unlikely
to qualify for the safe
harbor protection under the CDA.
Amazon.com does not edit posts, and thus
is essentially immune from suit. While the other case found an editor
liable, that was because it appeared from the complaint that he had
participated in the libeling. Wikipedia, unfortunately, falls between the
two extremes.
Are you suggesting that Wikipedia edits posts? Even if you rephrase
that question to whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation edits posts,
I think it's clear that the foundation does not edit posts.
Individuals, who are neither employed by nor controlled by the
foundation, edit posts.
Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l