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.
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).
He was asking for it.
Maybe, but there's nothing that protects free speech. The First Amendment limits Congress -- not State legislatures (directly, anyway -- as applied, it limits them too) -- from making laws against certain kinds of speech. Making something illegal and letting someone get money from you when you're a j*****s are two different things.
But isn't it technically free speech to defame someone?
First if it is something written it's libel, not defamation. Secondly, you're only allowed to do it if what you claim is actually true. If you're just making stuff up about someone then you're probably going to have to cough up.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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
Technically, yes. And you can't be criminally prosecuted for something of that nature, nor can it be restrained in advance. There is probably an exception for conspiracy to commit an actual crime. However, if you say something untrue that damages someone, you can be held liable for those damages. If the speech is printed, it's called libel; if spoken it is called slander.
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
You mean "libel, not slander." Slander and libel are both forms of defamation.
When he made the racist comments, he cries it was the whiskey and vicodon talking. Exactly who is talking now?
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
If I remember my libel law properly, just because it's false doesn't make it libel (at least in the states). For something to be libelous:
1) It must be false
2) It must have been uttered in *full knowledge of its falsehood*, or in reckless disregard for the truth.
3) It must have been uttered with "actual malace"
To collect damages one must also prove:
a) A reasonable party might have believed the statement
b) A reasonable party, upon hearing/reading it, would have through less of the victim
So in defending a libel case you've got three bright line defenses:
It was true. Prove this and you go home.
It was *reaonsably believed to be true* at the time of utterance. Prove this and you go home.
It was uttered without malice. Prove this and you go home.
Then you've got some wiggle room on the defamation half:
Sure it was malicious and libelous, but nobody would believe it
Sure it was malicious and libelous, and everyone believed it, but the plaintif had a crappy reputation to start with and the statements didn't make it materially worse.
Short version is that defending a libel case in the states is usually easy unless the case in truly eggregious.
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?
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.
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..."
Well, no.
In a nutshell, you can tell deliberate lies that hurt people's feelings, but you can't tell deliberate lies that cause them some kind of economic damage (in a rather wide sense,to be sure).
So, you can tell your friends that your roommate is a pathological liar, knowing it is false and will hurt his feelings. But you can't call up the company that he's interviewing with and say that without risking his coming after you for damages for slander. You can't tell your neighbor's wife that her husband is secretly HIV positive, becuase the law puts a value on things like conjugal relations.
There's all kinds of nuances and gray areas in defamation, but a starting point is that when you do deliberate harm to somebody, and it is harm of a nature that the law thinks can be reasonably balanced by moving a sum of money from your bank account to his, you are in trouble. The rest is just elaboration.
Another aspect of free speech is that while some forms of speech are punishable, in general there is a very strong bias under free speech against preventive measures. You can't sue somebody becuase they might defame you in the future (as far as I know). The government can't shut down your newspaper because you are just the sort of pinko who might publish state secrets. One way of thinking about this is that freedom doesn't necessarily mean freedom from consequences. This is why civil disobedience is important. If you want to punish somebody because he is going to break the law, you can simply disappear him. In a free society, you have wait until he is actually doing a crime, then you arrest him and as you try him publicly in a court of law, you are tried yourself in the court of public opinion. So the freedom to commit civil disobedience is an important freedom, one which is meaningless unless it results in a punishment.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
But it's an encyclopedia - not a Britney Spears fan forum.
Slightly bigger deal.
;)
As far as I know, since never.
However, any cited articles can themselves be used as sources. :)
Ya know, the Constitution has more than just the one Amendment. You might want to read up on #14.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
You can't sue for someone exercising free speech, you can only sue someone for saying something that is both false and harmful. For example, Microsoft cannot sue apple for their ads, because they are true (to some extent), and someone who says something about someone that is false, but does not cause any damage cannot be held liable for that.
Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
Yeah, but, like a Briney Spears (and I like that typo so much I will leave it...hehe, Briney) fan site, it's user-generated content. Regardless of how important it claims to be, it's still user-generated.
This is an interesting quandary, though. Wikipedia is not really considered citeable in academic circles, and yet it's taken seriously enough for someone who posts there to be sued. Obviously different contexts, but still. I'd think that one could use Wikipedia's lack of academic credentials as a protection here. Not wikipedia bashing; I like wikipedia. But you've gotta play the cards you're dealt, and that seems like a hand I'd try to play. The "You can't sue me, wikipedia isn't taken seriously enough to a valid reference" defense.
blah blah blah
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.
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.
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
You better watch out -- he may come for you next
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???
Yes.
for what it's worth, this definition syncs nicely with my own thinking about this case. While I tend to be fairly anti-lawsuit with regards to slander/libel issues on the internet, here I end up more in Fuzzy's camp, precisely because wikipedia is a serious (modulo interesting discussions on how trustworthy online wikis can be) online reference. So with that said, to your three criterion. 1. Must be false. -- Don't think anything needs be said about this. 2. It must have been uttered in *full knowledge of its falsehood*, or in reckless disregard for the truth. -- Because of the authoritative encyclopedia nature of wikipedia, in my view the bar is rather low here. As opposed to something like an online forum, where "I heard it through the grapevine" would be adequate to disprove "full knowledge of falsehood", given that wikipedia is supposed to be an authoritative encyclopedia, if an editor doesn't have some direct evidence of the facts (I suspect wikipedia requires this as well), to me, they easily meet the criterion of reckless disregard for the truth. 3. Must have been issued with malice. -- Given wikipedia's nature as an authoritative reference, falsehoods on it are necessarily more serious than if they were printed elsewhere. If someone writes falsehoods about someone in an encyclopedia, what could the reason be besides to get people to think that, and if so, how can that not be malicious? So in conclusion, I think your definition fits well with this case: Because wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I think Fuzzy should win if and only if the other person put it in there without any evidence it was true -- he must have had *some* basis in evidence for what he wrote. As far as I am concerned, that is a totally fair standard.
exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
I'd being suing whoever gave me that nickname if I were him...
This sig is false.
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
The difference is that he actually did say those things about Tiger Woods. He eventually apologized, publicly. I'm sure he wishes he could get a do-over for all-that, but he can't. But the references to drug use and wife-beating are (he says) untrue, so he's understandably upset. If it were me I'd be upset about the wife-beating accusations (if I had a wife), though I couldn't really care less about the drugs and alcohol.
#1 The article just states the facts of the incident. (It doesn't specifically use the word "racism")
#2 The facts as stated are true -- so he wouldn't have a libel case.
There's a big difference there. The rascist Tiger Woods remark is very well documented (heck, someone posted a youtube link to a video clip of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aWS0StFM5I ). It is hard to claim libel when you actually did it.
Then again, obviously he doesn't want to add to that by untrue statements. The things that were entered in Wikipedia were, indeed, pretty nasty.
1) It must be false
2) It must have been uttered in *full knowledge of its falsehood*, or in reckless disregard for the truth.
3) It must have been uttered with "actual malace"
So since I don't know if you beat your wife (or even have one), I'm free to say you do, because I don't have "*full knowledge of its falsehood*"?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Wikipedia is uncitable because its an encyclopedia. You can't cite Funk & Wagnells either but that doesn't make it in any way illegitimate or not taken seriously. Also they aren't being sued.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
um.....what are you talking about? you can cite an encyclopedia!
you can't cite wikipedia because it doesn't have anyone who actualy knows what their talking about putting their name on articles. for instance if i cite encyclopedia britanica then my prof can go look that article up and see what expert wrote it, then if he thinks it is wrong he can blame that person for giving invalid information.
on wikipedia some crack addict with a partial lobotomy can say that the egyptians ruled the romans and where controlled by aliens. no name. no degree. no backing. it would be like citing toilet wall graphitti.
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.
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?"
did you not read the part about "reckless disregard for the truth"
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
if you cite encyclopedia britannica for anything other than a gradeschool paper you deserve an automatic F
no college professor i have ever heard of and very vew highschool and middle school teachers will accept an encyclopedia as a source.
btw wikipedia is actually more accountable than dead tree encyclopedias. in wikipedia you can track down who contributed a certain piece of information in an article and you can compare it to other information contributed by that person. in a dead tree volume you cannot because all the articles are usually unsigned.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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!
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
Short version is that defending a libel case in the states is usually easy unless the case in truly eggregious.
Conversely, brining a suit would almost certainly be disastrous if there were a hint of truth to the defamation - achieving far wider publication of the allegations while uncovering the truth behind them. So the fact that he's suing at all is a strong indication that the smear is false.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
Sure, ignorance is bliss in this case - if you don't know what the truth is, how can you be recklessly disregarding it.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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