[WikiEN-l] Why the uproar over wikitruth

Sun Apr 23 21:38:30 UTC 2006

On 4/22/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/22/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > The Prodigy case is irrelevant, because the CDA was passed after that
> > case.  In fact, section 230 of the CDA was created in large part as a
> > response to the Prodigy case.  See [[Section 230 of the Communications
> > Decency Act]].
>
> Well, almost.  The common law elements of the Prodigy case stand if
> the elements of the statutory exemption of CDA 230 are not satisfied.
> It is *probably* the case that Wikipedia can *sometimes* satisfy CDA
> 230, but not always.  If someone is trusted with access to sensitive
> information in order to facilitate the smooth running of Wikipedia and
> then proceeds to publish that information, then a plaintiff, having
> notified Wikipedia of defamation and then seen the defamation
> published via a leak by a Wikipedia administrator to WikiTruth
> *might* argue that Wikipedia did not take all reasonable steps to
> limit damage, and a court might accept this as a prima facie case for
> third party liability.
>
Frankly, I just don't see it, but maybe I don't know what you mean by
"sensitive information".  You also don't mention what Wikipedia would
be sued for.  Negligence?  If so, I don't see where the duty of care
is.

> This is hypothetical, but I think it demonstrates that Wikitruth, if
> its purported evidence of Wikipedia admin collusion is correct,
> represents a fairly serious problem for Wikipedia.

I'm not willing to say that there isn't a serious problem.  In fact,
if Wikitruth is publishing information which violates someone's right
to privacy, *that* might be a problem.  But in my opinion anything
that violates someone's right to privacy shouldn't be available to
admins in the first place.

Anthony