Slashdot Mirror
Golfer Sues Over Vandalized Wikipedia Entry
coondoggie writes "Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing to track down the author of what Zoeller says is a defamatory paragraph about him on the Wikipedia site. In an Associated Press story Zoeller's attorney, Scott Sheftall, said he filed a lawsuit against a Miami firm last week because the law won't allow him to sue Wikipedia."
So what's the story...the fact that he's doing the right thing here?
He's suing the correct person for (if the accusations are true - and you've seen Wikipedia troll edits, they probably are) a legitimate reason. So the story is that he's not an idiot suing Wikipedia like the rest of the idiots would?
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Did he legitamately say that stuff, or is it just made up stuff about him? If he really said it, why should it not go on his permanent record?
God spoke to me.
Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing to track down the author of what Zoeller says is a defamatory paragraph about him on the Wikipedia site.
Is that the one that says the number of lawsuits he's filing against Wikipedia has tripled in the last six months?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
But isn't it technically free speech to defame someone?
Ahhhh, lawyers. The cause of -- and solution to -- all of life's problems.
He didn't sue the law firm because he can't sue Wikipedia so much as he sued the origin of the IP address from which the edits came (which happened to be a law firm) rather than Wikipedia , because he was unlikely to win against Wikipedia. Strictly speaking, there are very few cases (none that I can think of) where you just can't sue (whether the suit survives a 12(b) motion to dismiss -- especially 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) -- is another issue entirely).
who cares what the pedophiles at wikipedia post on their crappy site anyway, its not like you can't use them on your college paper anymore.
He was asking for it.
I would think it highly optimistic to think that Wikipedia can't be sued.
Even if there's an argument that Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation aren't responsible for the content - and I'm a bit skeptical about that - there will still be people who will launch suits just to get information removed.
Ultimately Wikipedia will either wind up caving to anyone who complains, or spending many, many thousands of dollars on lawyers defending themselves.
Three Squirrels
When he made the racist comments, he cries it was the whiskey and vicodon talking. Exactly who is talking now?
"Someone on the internets doesn't like me?! OH NOES! Sue them!"
...on the matter. :-) On topic, this man is clearly an egotistical idiot. Most people would just try to get it worked out with Wikipedia (get the info corrected / removed), or failing that, just shrug something like this off. However, the fact that he's suing about it (how utterly infantile) is counter-productive to his goal: to not look like an ass in front of the Internet-using world. Well, congratulations "Fuz", I had no idea who you were until today. But now that you're suing somebody over a wiki entry, now I know you're an idiot.
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
In case someone is wondering what makes Fuzzy notorious, here's the goods. Pretty stupid, but he apologized later (and I think very well).
He can't sue Wikipedia, so he's suing the next closest target.
Sounds like Fuzzy Logic to me.
This sueing becuase he/she said bad things that you don't like seem wrong somehow, at the very list unnatural. I'm sure it seems like the civilized thing to do, however I just not comfortable with this litigation happy environment.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
"Is that the one that says the number of lawsuits he's filing against Wikipedia has tripled in the last six months?"
Unprecedented in the 759 years of American History. When Wikipedia was formed at the Magna Carta Summit I'm sure they never thought this would happen.
Need Mercedes parts ?
They shouldn't be allowed to sue Wikipedia unless they are accusing Wikipedia of the damage itself. Providing a medium for someone else is not enough. Wikipedia setting up a website is like a paper company giving paper to a newspaper company. You sue the newspaper, not the paper company.
The very fact that someone could have conceivably sued Wikipedia is the reason why I'm afraid to start a business in this country. I don't want to waste a day of my life in court because some idiot decided to sue me instead of a user of my website. Courts should just dismiss stupid cases if the wrong person is being sued. As long as the case can actually even be brought to court, the law hinders people like me from developing anything new around here. I really wish that would change.
he really doesn't understand the show. by doing this, he guarantees it will be open season on his entry. im sure by tomorrow he will have 4 arms, and be an alien of something equally as likely. not to mention, being zoellered, the internet equivalent of being munsioned. ouch.
-=] M3 Heavy industries - Download Free Game Tools
In the words of 'Judge Judy' Sheindlin: "The truth is an asbsolute defense against any claim of libel"
All your base are belong to us!
...whom my dad heard, on a nationally-televised golf game, when he missed a putt, say, "Goddamned fucking day!" under his breath. It's still a catch-phrase to us. So based on that criterion alone, I *like* Zoeller. Well, as much as one can like a golfer at all. ;)
I suspect that to a judge the Wikipedia is going to look a lot more like a publisher than a paper company. "Letters to the Editor" can still expose a newspaper to a suit for libel.
...but why are school children disguising themselves as nuns?
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
just EDIT THE ARTICLE and go on about his merry way?
I say we turn this entire slashdot story into a forum where we can write libel about Fuzzy Zoeller... i mean, what, is he going to sue us all???
Rirelobql xabjf gung EBG-13 vf gur yrnfg frpher rapelcgvba rire, ohg jbhyq lbh jnfgr lbhe gvzr npghnyyl qrpelcgvat vg???
The story here is: ImportantPerson(tm) got his feelings hurt, and for that $omebody must pay.
It doesn't matter. The Communications Decency Act was a terrible law and most of it was struck down as being unconstitutional. But a portion of it is still in effect: 47 USC 230. It grants extremely broad protection for providers and users of computer systems who merely reprint information provided by another. Wikipedia itself didn't make this edit to the page, a user did. As a result, Wikipedia can't be sued for the damage to the plaintiff's reputation. He'll have to find the original source.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
With a name like "Fuzzy" wouldn't you drink too?!
The original generic sig.
Later Zoeller went public with his alcoholism and prescription drug addiction, explaining that at the time he made those statements, he was "in the process of polishing off a fifth of Jack (Daniels) after popping a handful of vicodin pills". He further detailed the violent nature of his disease, recalling how he'd viciously beat his wife Dianne and their four children while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. He also admitted feigning a ruptured spinal disc in 1985 so as to be prescribed a multitude of prescription medication. [4]
He sought professional help and mended his fractured familial relationships. In May 2006, Zoeller said in an interview with Golf Digest magazine that he hadn't beaten his wife in nearly five years.
I guess suing the law firm and having the link to The Smoking Gun lawsuit papers in his Wikipedia article permanently is better than just editing it himself.
"Don't lose your mind trying to set it free..."
who made a pathetic attempt at humor when Tiger won his first Master's by advising him not to just have "fried chicken and collard greens" at the dinner. Not only an idiot, but a racist too.
Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear
Fuzzy wuzzy felt despair
Fuzzy wuzzy yelled until blue
Fuzzy wuzzy please don't sue.
He has no case. For one thing, Fuzzy Zoeller is well known to be an admitted alcoholic meth addict sex-offender.
And a pill-popper.
You gotta admit: if that paragraph isn't true, it is definitely libel by its defaming nature. Most people would be angry if this were in their own wikipedia entry. I know the Slashdot title is sensationalist, but in all honesty, I can see why he'd want to sue.
The guy who said the golf organization shouldn't serve fried chicken and collard greens next year..(so Tiger presumably would have nothing to eat?).. that was so long ago. And his comments are not that racist geeeeze . I am white, and I work in a black neighborhood at a large employer. People eat fried chicken almost every day. It is great food. I go into the breakroom, and there is fried chicken on the table and in the fridge. So what. Half of the emloyees are white. Everybody loves fried chicken. I have never seen collard greens though, and I'm not sure anyone really likes them. Such a bland vegatable dish it is. I didn't learn until I was grown up that all my favorite foods are the typical "black" foods. In kindergarten I said my favorite food was watermelon, and second was fried chicken, and third was french fries. I still have a poorly written list made by myself as a kindergartener in a scrapbook my mom made. I grew up in an almost completely white neighborhood and church. That is how I know without any question that there is nothing typically black about my favorite foods. They are just very good all by themselves.
I do think collard greens are a possible exception, if there is anyone who really does like them. So then if the chicken thing were acceptable, he was walking away when he remembered to turn back and snap about the collard greens. he almost walked away, but then realized he needed to make a racists comment, so he turned around and tossed one back. So he was still being a dumbass. But he's a pro golfer, what do you expect? A moral Leader? A role model for your kids? He job is to hit a little pitted ball into a hole a few hundred yards away. Nothing great about that. Folks seem to have assumed too much value in people like him.
Maybe he should have sued McDonalds , they're always around and have deep pockets.
I find it very troubling that wikipedia keeps calling any changes made on it's site that it doesn't like vandalism. To me it seems the only reason to use that word is to claim it's a crime to edit a wikipedia entry with unpopular or bad information. That of course can't be a crime, because the whole point of wikipedia is to be open for anyone to edit.
So, wait, I'm confused.
His wiki also states that he had some very racist and unfriendly things to say about Tiger Woods. He's not trying to get that taken out, oh no. He wants references to drug use taken out.
I don't think anything could have proved him to be more of a dinosaur.
Racism, well, that's just fine. But don't let me hear you say I do drugs!
How can anyone with the name 'Fuzzy' possible claim defamation of character as grounds for a lawsuit? I would have thought his parents would be the first target to go after.
The very nature of publication rights these days means that your analogy is flawed.
If a paper company gave paper to a newspaper company, told them to fill it up with whatever content they saw fit, and THEN published it without editorial input, then it'd be a fair comparison. Unfortunately, that only happens on the internet. The medium and the publication are synonymous, so the responsibility for the message isn't quite so clear-cut as it has been in the past.
If you don't understand that this is a significant and subtle shift, I'm not sure I really want you to start a business.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I'd being suing whoever gave me that nickname if I were him...
This sig is false.
Fuzzy Zoeller was a golfer
Fuzzy Zoeller had no ball fur
Fuzzy Zoeller wasn't fuzzy, was he?
who gives a fuck???
You do know he is not suing Wikipedia, right? He tracked the IP of the person who posted the allegedly libelous comments in Wikipedia to Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami law firm. He is suing them, probably hoping they will tell him which of their employees he should be suing instead.
I don't care why you're posting AC
'Next Best Thing'?
I hear the number of racist comments made by Fuzzy Zoeller has at least tripled in the past six months.
Someone allegedly said in writing things that were libelous toward someone else.
That should be all we need to know. The fact that it took place on the internet is simply not relevant.
As a Wikibook administratos I can tell you that the WikiMedia software never deletes anything - it is just hidden from the general public. If you have a legitimate reason to look at deleted entries you can ask an Administrator to make the data available to you.
Martin
The story is actually that someone's finally doing something to defuse, well, what Penny Arcade called the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. (Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad.) There are a lot of people who did just that: took the supposed anonymity of the internet as just an oportunity to harrass, defame, cause grief, etc.
It can be a lot of damage even if you're not an "ImportantPerson(TM)", because we live in an age where bosses google their employees, neighbours google each other, and the village gossip googles the whole freakin' village for some gossip material. We're also in an age where people might glue posters to your door or drive you out of town because they found someone else by the same name rumoured to be a sex offender in some anonymous blog, or as was once the case because they were too stupid to know what "paeditrician" means. (It's a kind of doctor, not a paedophile.) We also live in an age of hypocrisy where someone might hold some rumour against you, not because they believe it, not because they are any better, but because it doesn't fit their bullshit PR corporate image.
So basically carpet bombing the internet, Wikipedia included, with bits of defamation like "JohnTurner admitted in 2007 that he was trying hard to overcome his kiddy porn addiction" or "JohnTurner said he stopped beating his wife nowadays" or "see JohnTurner's guide to surfing for porn undetected at work and using the corporate appserver as a warez site. Excellent reading." can cause a lot of harm even if you're not some celebrity.
E.g., the HR drone for your next job googles you, they don't have the time or the inclination to do a thorough checking. Most of what everyone does at all stages is actually looking for some excuse, any excuse, no matter how lame, to discard as many candidates as possible. It can be just because they didn't like your email provider, or it can be literally by numerology or tarot. (Don't laugh, it's not a joke, there _are_ companies which use numerology or tarot to thin out the candidates pool. Assign a number to each letter in your name, sum them up, sum the digits up until you get a single digit, see if it matches the sum for the company name. If not, your CV goes directly into the garbage bin.) The underlying assumption is that you're just yet another dime-a-dozen peon in a sea of perfectly replaceable and interchangeable peons. PHBs love that assumption. So noone's going to do a thorough checking just for you, see the context, see if such a guide to surfing for porn actually exists anywhere, etc. They'll just google until something bad comes up, then stop.
And it's maybe not a bad thing that someone is suing such a fuckwad and proving once again that anonymity isn't as granted as people think. Sure, noone will bother getting your name out of the ISP if you just posted on Slashdot during work hours, but if you take the step to actively harrass and defame someone, or break any other law, all that anonymity may well be harder to maintain than just being behind a modem. For a lot of people it might just take the essential component out of that greater internet fuckwad recipe. It may even be a good thing.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Wah wah wah! Someone wrote something nasty about me. Wah wah wah! Mommy!
Dude, GROW UP!
Can I sue the city? if someone spraypaints slander about me on a wall?
Prehaps I could sue the goverment if the law ISNT the way I want it.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuzzy_Zo eller&diff=110069453&oldid=110069413
Zoeller is also notable for endorsing the Prosthipenis, a penile prosthetic for men whose genitals have been irreparably damaged, saying "it really turned my life around, I feel like a man again for the first time since that awful belt-sander accident".
...wikipedia keeps calling any changes made on it's site that it doesn't like vandalism.
Wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VAND to find out what vandalism is and what it is not.
shure - i just did not want to make my post to compicated for the average /. reader :-) .
Zoeller was libeled, and it appears that it was done by an employee at work. The company doesn't deserve to take the rap for this any more than Zoeller should have to put with it. The vandal should be identified for the record. Wikipedia has hidden the evidence, but some of it was captured before they did this. It is linked at the top of http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/
Anti-Trend,
Fuzzy is from very near my home town. He is a fine man and not the type of person you claim. Professional golfers make most of their money through endorsements and not by winning at golf (though this does help!). It's not too hard to imagine that such defamatory remarks could, in fact, harm him financially. I think he has good reason to sue the person responsible.
Your opinion, that this might not be the most productive way to clean up a tarnished image, may have some merit. The manner in which you asserted it reveals that you are the "utterly infantile" person in this conversation.
Just ask the good Jedi how they feel about "Balance" now...
Why not just correct the errors on his wikipedia article and get on with life.
He seriously needs to lawyer-up and hope for a settlement?
It's just wikipedia, it's not the frigg'n New York Times, or something that relies on credibility and accountability.
Come read my blog, where I talk about Fuzzy Zoeller's involvement with the black-market diamond trade. It's trues I tells-ya!
Posting this anonymously today, but about ten years ago my girlfriend at the time took me to a huge no-holds-barred party at the home of the good Mr. Zoeller. I got to meet his bi daughter (whom my girlfriend apparently still had a thing for) and his apparently worthless Porsche-driving fratboy son, who threw up in the grand piano later that same evening. It was quite a party, topless lesbians everywhere. Anyway, apparently this was S.O.P. at the Zoeller household, or so the daughter told me whenever her mouth wasn't... well, otherwise occupied.
The Wikipedia entry was just repeating what is generally common knowledge around town anyway.
Updating the wikipedia entry with information you know to be false is vandalism. It's not a question of wikipedia not liking it. It's an act by an individual(s) to forcibly alter the content of the page in a manner not consistant with reality.
I do consider things like government officials having their staff daily editing their entries to post their 'stand' on an issue, and deleting all the evidence to the contrary, to be vandalism. The same as I consider someone adding these false claims to Fuzzy's entry to be vandalism.
These are not the same as people posting incorrect dates or honestly confusing 2 the 2 'Howard Sterns' in the news right now (One a radio DJ & the other a lawyer). This particular instance appears to be a malicious addition to his entry for whatever reason. That makes it both libel, and vandalism.
So, if I read you right, you are beating Fuzzy up over what he thinks?
Look, I reacted the same way you probably did when I heard both Fuzzy's and Tim Hardaway's comments. I, personally, don't feel the same way they do. But make no mistake about it -- I firmly believe they have a right to feel anyway they want to feel. Whether they express those sentiments is another matter and we, reasonably, expect to talk about it when they do mouth off.
Of course, we can react to what they say however we choose. But beating someone up and basically saying, "you aren't thinking about this correctly" is the same thing as being the thought police.
In sum:
Beating up for speaking their mind - fine.
Reacting however you want to - fine.
Beating them up for THINKING what they think - not a good thing.
Paul Newman, I think.....addresses this very issue, you'll like it.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
but you didn't hear that from me....nor that he whacks them around almost every day...
A goal is a dream with a deadline
They can simply require any submission to have some sort of referenceable source...you know, kinda like what I have to do when I make a regulatory compliance finding or structural analysis.
Although...I did once reference a paper that I wrote on work done a few years later...this then, would be the engineering equivalent of "because I said so".
Then again, the prior paper had numerous outside references to support it.
The point is, Wikipedia can require submitters to show some evidence that they are not just "pulling this out of their ass".
A goal is a dream with a deadline
I hope they serve fried chicken at the trial.
Looks as though the defamatory remarks are sort of back in the article. Except now they are there as a factual statement that he is suing for someone posting those remarks. I find that ironic and funny.
The reporting of the remarks doesn't quote them. Instead it paraphrases them in a way that makes it clear that they were an over-the-top vandalism rather than having any connection to Zoeller's actual behavior.
Further, anybody who is at all familiar with the law on defamation would be aware that truth is an absolute defense. Zoeller would be a fool to file such a suit if there were any truth at all to the allegations.
So, no, I don't see any irony or humor in the entry containing the facts of the suit including a paraphrase of the remarks in question. If anything it serves as a retraction and a defense of Zoeller's character.
When was the last time you saw, say, the New York Times give as much prominence to a retraction of an erroneous story as they gave to the original story. Yet this is exactly what Wikipedia is doing.
Further, the retraction will no doubt remain posted far longer than the original smear, and (thanks to both the expanding fame of Wikipedia and the press coverage of this issue) come to the attention of far more people.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
A fair point, but even a successful libel case isn't going to remove that stigma from your name.
It will for anyone familiar with the law - provided the case receives as much coverage as the original libel or slander.
Truth is an absolute defense against suits for libel or slander. So a defamed person would be a fool to sue if there was a trace of truth to the smear: Such truth would almost certainly come out, with MUCH wider coverage, at the trial. And then he'd also be on the hook for filing a bogus suit. Thus just the fact that he's suing is a strong indication that the smear is completely false.
Meanwhile, the fact of the suit replacing the smear in the Wiki entry serves as a long-lived retraction, with at least the reach of the original smear. Even old caches are automatically linked to the updated entry, while the news articles also link back and give it broader coverage. No doubt the entry will eventually be updated with the result of the suit, as well, and last for a very long time.
It's nice to see that Wikipedia's structure so strongly resists use as a defamation tool. It's good both for the project itself and for a world of potential victims.
"Thee shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
> He is a fine man and not the type of person you claim.
"That little boy is driving well and he's putting well. He's doing everything it takes to win. So, you know what you guys do when he gets in here? You pat him on the back and say congratulations and enjoy it and tell him not to serve fried chicken next year. Got it?" Zoeller then smiled, snapped his fingers, and walked away before turning and added, "or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve."
Yeah, great guy.
I don't think it's a law firm. Their website says they do "foreign credentials evaluation" which sounds like they should be experts at determining whether, say, a Wikipedia entry is valid or bogus.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
I didn't bother to check their site, but I'll take you at your word. The article linked to in the summary (from Networkworld, whoever the hell they are) said they were a "law firm," and claimed to be quoting an Associated Press story. The Miami Herald calls them a "Miami education consulting firm." ESPN agrees, as do most of the other sites I just checked. Of course, most of those are just re-publishing the AP story, without checking it for accuracy.
I guess the lesson here is don't take everything you read as gospel, regardless of whether you read it on Wikipedia, or CNN, or in your local newspaper. Check out the facts, cause they probably didn't bother.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Suing over libel on the internet is not a sign of intelligence. Famous people deal with this all the time, and the bright ones ignore it. Wiki articles are what they are: the opinions of posters. They remove such libel if anyone thinks it's worth removing. Evidently this libel was posted for over a month before anyone cared enough to correct it. This may say a lot about Fuzzy or even more about Fuzzy'a fans, or ever even more about Wikipedia. What this will get for Fuzzy is a lot of bad publicity. People will dig up all the questionable statements he has ever made, including the racist ones. The golfing industry sponsors won't like that. His fans will get too much information. It might even kill his career on the circuit. He may end up on a third-rate course somewhere in Florida as the "local golf pro," which translates as "Has-Been." Maybe his case will serve as an example to other famous people: get a thicker skin or laugh it off, after all, it was just some idiot on the net.
"I would not be just a nuffin' My head all full of stuffin' My heart all full of pain. I would dance and be merry Li
They published information even after several requests not to.
The inventor of phonton induced electric field poling Michael E. Thomas has " 2 patents " and requested Wikipedia remove the commonality of their prose stating EVERYONE knows how to do this and further NOT giving credit for his 20 years of ground breaking work on the technology.
After 8 years of website publication and research from 1985 in which no other country, company, or scientist ever doing research in the area was characterized by Wikipedia as banal research.
Wikipedia thinks they are the Patent Office and God of Gods.
I hope Zoellor shuts Wikipedia down ! go Fuzzy !
What a fucking whinier "You made fun of me! I'll Sue! Waaaaa!" Fucking American legal system, nobody sued him when he basically called Tiger Woods a porch monkey
Make SELinux enforcing again!
What is the IP, for God's sake??
free speach
Did you mean: free speech