[WikiEN-l] And yet more fallout

Mon Dec 19 03:18:17 UTC 2005

> information regarding Ms. Ford.  From our investigation, I have 
> concluded that your website does indeed publish materially 
> false information regarding Ms. Ford.
> 
> Specifically:
> You publish an incorrect birthdate for Ms. Ford
> You publish other incorrect biographical information 
> regarding Ms. Ford.
> 
> Now that you know by my admonition to you above, that this 
> information 
> you publish is *patently false,* I hope that you will follow 
> what I recommend as the simple resolution of this Libel 
> situation: that you remove all reference to Ms. Ford from 
> your website.

Is this a form letter?  How could it be faster for him to type all that
than to say "Ms. Ford's birthday is actually xx/xx/xxxx"?

In any case, I don't see how you can demand removal of all reference to
something from a website. In the case of wikipedia, that's a poor
solution - the information would just come back, unwatched.

> 
> If you persist and continue to patently publish false and misleading 
> information that continues to be injurious to my client, then 

How can an incorrect birthdate be injurious? What is the unspecified
other "incorrect information"?
> Federal laws. I attached an article from CNN.com that I am 
> certain your legal 
> department is aware.  
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11/wikipedia.ap/index.html

He didn't read this bit? "Seigenthaler said he doesn't plan to pursue
legal action against Chase." And in that case the information actually
is defamatory.

Is there a standard reply to such things now? Do you recommend that the
aggrieved parties edit the pages themselves, or is it always "we'll get
someone onto it straight away"?

Steve