Slashdot Mirror
John Seigenthaler Sr. Criticises Wikipedia
EsonLinji writes "John Seigenthaler Sr, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, has written a commentary in USA Today expressing outrage at a libelous biography that appeared on Wikipedia that suggested he was involved with the assasination of JFK and spent more than a decade in Russia. His commentary also takes aim at internet providers and the laws that allow them to act as common carriers without liability for the actions of their users."
no link to the article?
Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Don't drink and derive.
Isn't it a bit ironic that Wikipedia (supposedly a reliable encyclopedia) has less advanced moderation than Slashdot (famously unreliable)? Perhaps it's time they got a bit more structure.
... That includes obscure topics like video games that you might not care about.
Actually, a new feature called article validation is about to go live on wikipedia. See the article from this week's signpost. The feature will hopefully help adress some of the issues being raised in this story.
I do also notice that Wikipedia has a lot of entries for stuff that might not otherwise be considered important enough to be in an encyclopedia - open source software that is not yet out of beta, cars in video games etc.
Yeah, so? Jimmy Wales:"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
I don't believe he made anyone aware of it, either,
;)). From my impression of the article, Jimbo was more then helpful and the writer appreciated it and didn't hold him personally responsible. However he does want to make Jimbo legally responsible in the future, which is quite odd considering how much of a positive response he got from him (I guess Bellsouth's response left a very sour taste in his mouth).
Actually he called up Jimbo and it was changed (that's what happens when you RTFA
First Amendment rights are not absolute. Libel and slander are two exceptions to the rule and could apply here. One of the greatest failings of the internet is that it allows people to write libelous comments with little fear of legal action. Technology isn't the Great Equalizer, it's the Great Enabler, nothing more. It allows people to avoid personal responsibility for their comments. If it were truly equalizing, the damage caused by libel could be just as easily reversed by rebutting the comments. Unfortunately people fit into this great technology equation somewhere and things aren't that simple anymore. The original libelous comments have already formed an opinion in people's minds and a simple rebuttal will not sway our opinions easily. Throw in information overload and people are far too willing (and I mean all people, not just technophobes) to believe comments in the internet without doing any research into the allegations and determining for themselves who's right and who's wrong.
The law makes a clear distinction between First Ammendment rights and libel. He is suggesting that this is a libelous and damaging article.
I have to admit that I was expecting more than a couple of sentences of offending text in wikipedia though. Either one of those sentences could be passed off as misinformation though. Even if he found the author, I think it would be hard to prove that it is libel.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
I was going to point out the role that anonymous pamphleteers played in kindling the American Revolutionary War, which I think we're safe in assuming John Seigenthaler Sr still recognizes as a good thing. But in researching references, I found someone who had already articulated this argument better than I could hope to:
(Full article by Ken Anderson, Editor of the Magic City Morning Star, is here; it points out how many of the founding fathers 'posted anonymously')
It's too bad John Seigenthaler Sr. has his feelings hurt by what is an obviously untrue story about him. I'm a little suprised that someone with what appears to be both polititcs and journalism in his background is so easily perturbed such ludicrous accusations; both professions generally involve thicker skins than that. he's welcome to his opinion about the wisdom of allowing anonymity - but fortunately (in my opinion!), reality differs.
New York Times v. Sullivan is a good precedent here.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times, stating that "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open".