SearchBlog AuthorsTom Boone
Reference Librarian for Electronic Services
Lillian Goldman Law Library
Yale Law School
Joshua Brauer
Principal
Brauer Ranch
Boise, Idaho
ContactFeel free to contact us with your comments, thoughts, and ideas...
Contact Tom:
trboone@gmail.com AIM/Yahoo: tomyalelaw Contact Joshua:
joshua.brauer@gmail.com AIM: joshunlvlaw SyndicateBlogroll |
Pro golfer suing over Wikipedia entrySubmitted by Tom Boone on February 23, 2007 - 10:42am.
Professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is going to court to discover the identity of a person who added unsubstantiated information regarding substance abuse and family problems to his biography on Wikipedia...
The Smoking Gun obtained a copy of Zoeller's complaint and posted it online. The site provides a summary of the alleged defamatory content...
This follows the 2005 controversy surrounding inaccurate content in the Wikipedia biography of writer John Siegenthaler, Sr. Following the addition of text stating his suspected involvement in the John and Robert Kennedy assassinations, Siegenthaler publicly criticized Wikipedia and its content policies. He also criticized Congress for passing the Communications Decency Act which prevented any legal action against the website. Siegenthaler did not, however, take legal action of any kind, and when the identity of the anonymous poster was discovered, he spoke with him on the phone and accepted his apology. [AP] Golf Champion Zoeller Sues to Identify Author of Wikipedia Post Bookmark/Search this post with:
|
Thanks for linking these cases
Congratulations. It seems (by a Google search), you're the first online source to draw a comparison between the Siegenthaler and Zoeller incidents. I am beginning to wonder, for Wikipedia's sake, should they be concerned that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act might not hold up if there is an accumulating history of abuses of the site? We have had concerns voiced in the past by Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, Siegenthaler, and now Zoeller. At what point might a judge say, "Wait, Section 230 was supposed to apply to ISP's that are just allowing users to post comments in message board environments. This is a site purporting to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA, and people use it as such. Wikipedia's management engages in editing on a daily basis within the same forum as the vandals. That's different than just an anonymous message board hosted by a Yahoo or an AOL type of entity." Does anyone think that some type of "attractive nuisance" doctrine might eventually be employed here against Wikipedia?
The reason I ask this is that, to date, Wikimedia Foundation administrators have taken a fairly cavalier attitude about complaints regarding libelous statements, knowing that Section 230 protects them. What happens when a judge with a different interpretation of the CDA takes a case? Wouldn't it be better if Wikipedia began immediately to improve its culture and process, to preempt such a suit, rather that waiting for it to happen?