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."
Actually when the case is libel, he doesn't have to merely put up with it or change it. Having said that, I disagree with his claim that content hosts should be held responsible for what users (or customers) place on their content. If they're made aware of it, then I can see an argument being made, but to have to screen every single post/change/webpage would be infeasible.
In any case, no amount of indignant editorials or feet-stamping make anyone else responsible for changing the article.
I knew someone was going to say that.
No. My local newspaper purports to be accurate and non-libelous. Wikipedia does not. The difference (almost) is between something in a newspaper, and something scribbled on a bathroom wall.
Meanwhile, you have the right to commit libel, as I have the right to sue you for it, if I can prove that you said it. Seigenthaler has the same option. What he is advocating is prior restraint.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I was going to say... Freedomforum.org states that:
Free speech
The First Amendment says that people have the right to speak freely without government interference.
The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center presents several programs addressing aspects of free speech, including Freedom Sings and First Amendment on Campus.
Free press
The First Amendment gives the press the right to publish news, information and opinions without government interference. This also means people have the right to publish their own newspapers, newsletters, magazines, etc.
The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center provides a program for newspaper editors and other staff through a partnership with the American Press Institute.
Conspicuously absent from the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.") is any mention of libel or such. In fact, the first amendment which he claims to defend is extremely specific in saying that Congress is not allowed to make any law that abridges the freedom of speech or of the press in any way (some will point out that congress doesn't stop people from publishing libellous documents, just punishes them afterwards... personally I consider that if a man tells me "if you say this you'll be fined $1000", he is abridging my freedome of speech, but this particular argument is, I suppose, off-topic).
While I sympathise with Mr Seigenthaler about the crap that ended up attached to his name on Wikipedia, I don't sympathize with this sort of dual approach to freedom.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Not only is he failing to use the eraser, he's also claiming the store that sold the chalk is responsible.
Internet forums are not like newspapers of old. There isn't an editor or a publisher who stands behind data being presented. It's raw vox populi in all its glory and ugliness. It's natural that falsehood and libel make their way into something like the Wikipedia, because any spiteful and unscrupulous person can, for some time, carry out a program of defamation.
...we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research -- but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them.
Naturally, anything of this nature that you read of the Wikipedia must be treated with extreme suspicion. That's a good habit to get into anyway, because it turns out the conventional media isn't necessarily better. They can do character assasination under the guise of innuendo and formulae carefully crafted to keep them out of legal trouble. Just think of the signature Fox technique for this. If they wanted out to get Mr. Seigenthaler, they'd simply keep saying as they go to commercial break, "Coming up, was John Seigenthaler part of a Kennedy assasination conspiracy?" They don't have to do anything; maybe they'll have a lame and completely unmemorable two minute discussion. The important thing is that they've drummed the following the following phrase into the public consciousness "Kennedy assasniation conspiracy", then associated his name with it.
I think an important thing to learn from the Wikipedia is the degree to which people should or should not be trusted. Clearly this incident shows how one should approach information in the Wikipedia with caution. However, to pick one or two incidents and use it as a representative of the whole is foolish indeed. It misses more than 50% of the data. Consider the following statement by Mr. Seigenthaler:
He says this as if it is other than it should be.
The same kind of arguments about the depredations of wicked individuals have been made in favor of censorship of the press and in favor of aristocratic rule. If people are allowed to print what they want, some of them will print libel and heresy. If people are allowed to rule, then the vote low minded persons will count as much as virtuous people. The problem with this train of thought is that it misses so much. It misses the shortcomings of the alternatives: the possibility that it might be the censors who have a libelous agenda, or the possibility that the aristocrats are the bigoted and low minded persons.
It also dismisses out of hand that virtue and decency may be more common in the general population than proponents of elitism will have you believe.
I am by nature a cynic about human nature, but if you need a counter example showing the preponderance of decency in the general population, I can think of no greater one than the Wikipedia. We all know the spiteful have less to do and thus more time to pursue their work than the fair minded. It takes ten, possibly a hundred or more decent people to balance one nasty one with an agenda. Given this, you would expect the Wikipedia, given its rules of governance, to be an utter cesspool. But it's not. Quite the contrary, it is nearly always very balanced, at least in articles with many people are watching. Clearly in the case of obscure figures such as Seigenthaler, there are few people watching. About the only thing it is safe to take from such an article is that he was somehow associated with the Kennedys.
When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
Then how much worse to spread an evil opinion about people in general?
The lesson of democracy and free speech is that there is always somebody somewhere who is breaking open the pillow and spreading the feathers around, and it's futile to try prevent it. But is possible to get them all, or mostly back. You just need lots of help.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This is why the English have laws against naming people accused of sex crimes prior to conviction, it avoids prematurely destroying their reputation.