Is Wikipedia safe from libel liability?

(continued from previous page)

And that's true even when a service provider--like Wikipedia-- makes regular efforts to ensure that content it hosts is clean. Prior to the passage of the CDA, said Opsahl, the legal environment was unclear about whether a service provider that took steps to edit content faced higher liability than one that didn't.

"One of the reasons Congress passed the (CDA) was to encourage service providers and other who make their space on the Internet available to do monitoring without assuming liability," said Roger Myers, a San Francisco-based partner at the international law firm DLA Piper Rudnick. "Congress was very specific about this."

"The question is what can we do to stop this in the future and at what price?"

--Jennifer Granick, Center for Internet and Society

In addition, said Myers, who occasionally consults on legal issues for CNET Networks, there's been only one case that has held that a service provider carries any liability if libelous information is brought to its attention and isn't taken down. But that case, Barrett v. Rosenthal, is currently under review by the California Supreme Court, and isn't currently citable, meaning it can't be used as precedent in future cases.

Still, the issues raised by the Seigenthaler case should be carefully considered, said Granick, because services like Wikipedia still contain inaccurate information.

"It's a fascinating issue," she said. "Because here you have Wikipedia, which is a great thing, which was able to flourish and thrive because of the absence of liability. On the other hand, the collaborative, decentralized nature of it means pieces of it are broken, and it's unavoidable. So the question is what can we do to stop this in the future and at what price?"

For its part, Wikipedia is attempting to address some of the problem with its new rule prohibiting unregistered users from creating new articles, though anonymous users will still be able to edit existing entries, said Jimmy Wales, the service's founder. Wales strongly believes the service is on solid ground.

"I'm not a lawyer," said Wales. But "to the extent that I'm aware, we would be in a similar situation to Yahoo or any kind of common Web site where people are allowed to post messages."

Wales also said that despite Wikipedia hosting other objectionable articles--which a group of volunteer administrators tries to address on a regular basis--the service has never been sued. But while Seigenthaler's situation is notable because of his relationship to the high-profile Robert Kennedy, the deleted Wikipedia article about him is only one example of a hoax on the site, something that happens from time to time.

We "plan to keep it that way if we can," he said. "We take a strongly pro-active approach to deleting vandalism and consider our approach to be 'best of breed' in terms of discouraging abusive postings."

In any case, issues like those raised by the Seigenthaler case are not likely to go away any time soon, and could still find their way into courtrooms, despite the CDA, said Douglas Lichtman, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

"Courts today still debate the precise contours of the relevant statute," said Lichtman, "but the consensus view would be that Wikipedia is not liable for most bad acts--including, say, defamation--that its contributors might perpetrate."

Lichtman added that he feels Wikipedia could face liability in some very limited cases.

For example, he said, if Wales and his Wikipedia colleagues knew clearly that they were distributing defamatory material, "that knowledge plus Wikipedia's ability to remove the defamatory material should, in my view, give rise to an obligation to act."

But Lichtman also noted that such an example was no more than a hypothesis.

"In Wikipedia's specific case, as implemented today," he said, "I do not see much more that can be done. The consensus view of the law would seem to protect Wikipedia, and that sounds like the right decision on policy grounds given the facts at hand."

CNET News.com's Michael Kanellos contributed to this report.

Wikipedia may be insulated from liability...

...but it's not insulated from legal bills.

[SqlserverCode]

I use Wikipedia

I use Wikipedia with the knowledge that it might not be accurate. What do you want from a free service? Even the NY Times has mistakes

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://otherthingsnow.blogspot.com" target="_newWindow">http://otherthingsnow.blogspot.com</a>

[me_news]

Oh Please

Instead of crying about it on tv, Seigenthaler could have corrected the article himself in seconds. In case of an edit war on Wikipedia the article can be locked and there is a dispute resolution process already in place.

There is no doubt that Wikipedia will never be error free or troll free but no Encyclopedia will ever be perfect.

The following link is an example of errors in the Britannica Ecnyclopedia: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4209575.stm" target="_newWindow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4209575.stm</a>

[Jim1900]

I don't buy it

Wikipedia is still not an "information service provider". They do not provide access to the server, they provide the server itself. I think they could still be liable.

[powerclam]

Nice in theory, crud in practice.

Bathroom walls have more editorial control than Wikipedia.
A wiki is only as good as the community - and unfortunately, the community is riddled with punks, jokers, and scumbags.
Otherwise, we wouldn't need policemen or cash-registers.

[The Freeholder]

Just curious

If Mr. Seigenthaler was so upset, why didn't he just edit the article and correct it? In all the reports of this incident, I haven't seen any indication that he tried this simple fix. After all, any anonymous bozo is allowed to edit, correct? He wouldn't even have to register.

[jamesmadison909]

Re: Just Curious

I think the point is that the information was there, visible to everyone, and totally incorrect. If someone was a little naive or unsuspecting and was using Wikipedia to provide research information, for that moment they would be reading and relying on _false_ information.

Imagine, especially, if a high school or elementary school suggested students rely on Wikipedia for information, and such bogus information were to appear.

Overall, I think Wikipedia needs to accept that they can't always be the most accurate source of information, and should probably put some clear and visible disclaimers on every page. Too many people are treating Wikipedia like the end-all encyclopedia, and Wikipedia, of course, is happy to let people think that, because it drives more people to the site and raises awareness of the project.

[kxmmxk]

funny

Actually, I think it's funny.

It's funny this happened to a journalist and he got all bent out of shape about it.

It's funny in light of all the false, and rush to print before validating stuff, that journalists do. All the crap they say and print, and then act like they never did when it turns out to be totally false. Or if they do admit it, the admition (not apology) ends up burried somewhere while the old headline is still there for anyone to find.

Just deserts in a way. They certainly don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot. What goes around and all that ...

And as mentioned before he could have easily dealt with it himself online at the site. This seems more like publicity, or the 'established' press trying to take on the grass roots press/info sites that are making them more and more obsolete.

[Afrimerican]

The Afrimerican View of Wikipedia

In posting my first article on Wikipedia about the afrimerican word and definition, I just assumed it would be logged and left up because it was new, informative, verifiable, and pertinent to providing fact based information all the world publics would benefit from knowing.

I was surprised whenit got deleted, and doubly syrprised that after said deletion, a banner went uo requesting an article about "AFRIMERICAN", so I wrote another one, and then another one, all of which were deleted.

In the talk back pages, which is a supposedly open discussion with Wikipedia monitors and administrators, the reaction to "Afrimerican" was more so personal, than objective, and void of any real research to prove or disprove claims made about Afrimerican. In fact most of what was said by Wikipedia personell was false, and then when proof was provided per their false claims, and along with information that proved the validity of all written in the Afrimerican article, their arguement became personal, and claims of racism, were hurled back and forth until I quit writing there.

Later, months ;later, I see Wikipedia is listed first or second when one does an internet search of African-American, Black, or Negro, but not Afrimerican, and I surmised part of their reasoning for deleting the Afrimerican article is becuse they can't put their own spin on itto feed the system of institutional racism bred from feeding the masses, and the race of Afrimericans misleading, and ambiguous information that creates an endless, pointless debate.

It is only in recent times that I have learned that Wikipedia is far short of the authority on any subject, that it's integrity is highly questionable, and that it's owners have found a way to propogate information as the see fit, per their own agenda, and racism, and they hide behind the legal sheild of the open editing claim, which, while true, in the end the final version is all Wikipedia, and they hide behind the open edit claim when they are confronted with their wrong doing, but it's Wikipedia staff, not the public that delivers the final version, and in cases that relate to Afrimericans, and Negroid people in general, Wikipedia has been extremely biased, defamatory, and slanderous without any opposing, and fact based information being allowed.

Afrimerican is filming a documentary and part of the documentary is to see how many times we can post an Afrimerican article on Wikipedia, and how many times wikipedia deletes it. It will be interesting to see the final count, in the meantime, I encourage everyone to ask Wikipedia why they keep deleting the Afrimerican article.

When Wikipedia is finally made/legally ordered to answer for their libel, please contact [e-mail]

[jeff_999]

Afrimerican is not a real word

Stop making words up. I couldn't find Afrimerican in any of the dictionaries I have at home and I couldn't find it in any of the online dictionaries below:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.m-w.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.m-w.com/</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/dictionaryhome.aspx" target="_newWindow">http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/dictionaryhome.aspx</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/" target="_newWindow">http://dictionary.reference.com/</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/" target="_newWindow">http://dictionary.cambridge.org/</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.yourdictionary.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.yourdictionary.com/</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.onelook.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.onelook.com/</a>

[VI Joker]

Here we go again

Give it up. Should Wikipedia have the right to remove content from the site? YES!! Is it right? That is debatable. However, seeing that they have an open-edit policy it appears they have a right to remove and change content as they see fit. If you feel that Wikipedia's "integrity is highly questionable". Why would you want your content there? Why wouldn't you want it in Britanica or any other encyclepedia?

[Wyatt_Ehrenfels]

Wikipedia's Defamation Superhighway

I have been testing the Wikipedia waters for some time now and have composed a report on abuses by General Wales's army of volunteer authorities:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.fireflysun.com/en.wikipedia.org.php" target="_newWindow">http://www.fireflysun.com/en.wikipedia.org.php</a>