On Mr Wollmann
He has been repeatedly calling Terry on the matter of the kook
reference, but also about some links in wikipedia. He is saying
something about us linking to his copyrighted information. And he wants
this link removed.
I had a look and realised there was initially an article under his name,
where the problematic link probably was.
There is no legal ground related to us mentionning that a third party
elected him a kook; so this issue is irrelevant.
As for the link issue, I think it was the ones in his article and he may
not have noticed it is gone. I copied the content of the article for
Terry and he will write him and reassure him.
If there is another link problematic somewhere, he is the one to mention
where it is and which link is concerned.
Anthere
PS : just mentionning this in case there are further complains.
I also think, essentially, it is the english wikipedia editorial
decision to keep or not, a kook nomination, a link, a page on a person.
However, if the man decides to go further, it is the WMF business
though... and currently, Terry receives phone calls on the topic.
Phil Boswell a écrit:
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4cc603b0505051626226b944d@mail.gmail.com...
On 5/5/05, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com>
wrote:
I would say anybody who posts to Usenet
automatically becomes
a "public figure"; you can hardly spew your thoughts and opinions
into a million computers around the world, then try to claim
"privacy". If you want to be private, start by keeping your
mouth shut, eh?
It's an interesting point, whether sitting in your own home typing
material onto the Web should in and of itself make you a public
figure. I'm not aware of any relevant case law. Using your real name
would certainly make it harder to argue that you'd intended to retain
your privacy.
So adding your full name, address and contact details to the end of each and
every post, as is Mr Wollmann's habit, would seem to fit this description:
this guy has been doing his darndest to *become* a public figure for years.