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."

Comments

Re:At least they have adequate legal representatio

[dheera]

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.

Re:this shows lack of understanding

[JDoorjam]

Actually, his article has received the same fate as the article on elephants, and John Seigenthaler, and others that have been the target of media attention or coordinated vandalism: experienced Wikipedians swarm the article to defend it, and end up improving it significantly. This sort of thing has always proven good for the respective articles in particular and Wikipedia in general.

Re:So did he actually say that stuff

[Al Dimond]

Oh man. During the leadup to the 2004 presidential election when Howard Dean was getting lots of press I noticed that he bore a striking resemblance to a Chicago-area lawyer that often had ads on TV named Peter Francis Geraci. So I put links to pictures of both in my AIM profile.

At this time I was signed up for a website that auto-stalked my AIM profile/away messages, so that people could see an archive of them. So that went into the archive.

One of my friends saw it and told me that she heard that Peter Francis Geraci beat his kids. I didn't take it seriously, but I quoted it in the profile. And it went up on the dude's website.

A few weeks later I got IMed by the guy running the website. He'd received an C&D from the office of Peter Francis Geraci and had to kick me off the service and delete my archive as a result. He was really nice about it, but there wasn't much he could do.

Re:So did he actually say that stuff

[uvajed_ekil]

He did say the stuff about Tiger Woods, and he did apologize and withdraw from the US Open that year as a result. The rest was apparently made up by the vandal - some pretty vicious stuff about wife-beating, based on the copy that was linked. I don't blame him for suing. BTW I remember his open apology to Woods which he read aloud at a press conference, and it was actually was very nicely done. 100 percent different from the half-hearted, ghostwritten-by-my-agent "apologies" we're accustomed to hearing from the likes of Tim Hardaway, Nick Saban, etc.

I also don't blame him for suing, as this is clearly a case of someone trying to defame him with false information. And yes, his apology to Tiger seemed sincere.

I had to comment because it should not be forgotten that what he initially said about Tiger was inexcusable. It's like when a white guy (like me) says the "n" word: you can't excuse that. I am white and do not say the "n" word, nor would I ever make comments about black people serving fried chicken, etc., because I don't think in terms of racial stereotypes. The mere fact that someone like Fuzzy says things like that clearly shows that he is at least somewhat racist. As with Michael Richards, Fuzzy stopped censoring himself for a moment and let his true feelings seep out, even though he knows what he said was hurtful. That would NEVER happen to someone who is not a racist, since we don't think like that to begin with. That might all be okay for a PGA golfer or a NASCAR driver, but I can't help but wonder what would happen to an NBA or NFL player, or even a politician or corporate CEO, if he talked like Fuzzy.

So if someone makes up defamatory things about Fuzzy, that person has opened himself up to punishment. However, I will never feel bad for Fuzzy if he is remembered as an idiot. Great golfer, interesting guy, and obviously a jerk.

Re:So what's the story?

[blanks]

"Hmm. Someone tells lies about you that might damage your reputation or livelihood. "

Yes but it also has the reversed affect, where companies and people can now sue anyone or everyone for posting/saying anything negative about them.

So for example you can not post on a rating site your opinion based on an expierence of a company/services unless its good without fear of a lawsuit. Which I had to deal with 2 years ago.

Re:Wikipedia never looses anything

[Registered Coward v2]

s 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.

Under Wiki's license shouldn't everything, including edits, be available to anyone? If not then you have a loophole that others can exploit to avoid complying with the license.

Re:Wikipedia never looses anything

[krischik]

Interesting point. However, there are several resons why not:

1) Page-Name typos - why keep them online?
2) SPAM
3) Illegal content
4) Unwanded content - Each wikipedia project has a mission and will not accept content which is utside scope.

If you disagree in a particular case you can file a "vote for undelete" and ask the adminstrators to make the content available.

Martin