Sat 17 Dec 2005
I ran across a class action lawsuit against Wikipedia today, and the letter on the front page put me into one of those moods where I just have to tell people why they’re being stupid. Here’s the letter:
Welcome!
There is a problem with the operation and functionality of Wikipedia. The basic problem is that none of the Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., nor any of the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia, consider themselves responsible and therefore accountable for the content.
They believe themselves to be above the law.
WikipediaClassAction.org is currently gathering complaints from the entire Internet community, including individuals, corporations, partnerships, etc., who believe that they have been defamed and or who have been or are the subject of anonymous and malicious postings to the popular online encyclopedia WikiPedia.
Alternatively, if you are aware of postings on Wikipedia that are either untrue and or potentially libellous to another, please contact them and make them aware of the offending content and this website so that they may file a complaint with our group.
Our intention and the purpose of this website is multi-fold. Specifically, we seek to achieve the following:
- Expose the inherent faults and flaws of the Wikipedia online encyclopedia
- Force Wikimedia Foundation Inc., through legal action, to change its current practices that permit anyone to post content to their website, without formal attribution and without recourse back to Wikimedia Foundation and or the author of the content
- Recover substantial monetary damages, on behalf of those who have suffered as a direct result of Wikimedia’s flawed business model
- Establish a precedent that will ensure similar websites are held responsible for their content
Recent news articles have exposed the growing problem with Wikipedia’s methods. Untrue information posted to Wikipedia, as fact, by an anonymous ‘volunteer’ (Brian Chase, 38, a resident of Nashville, TN was later exposed as the person behind the lie) suggesting that journalist John Seigenthaler had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy was eventually removed by Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales, but only after more than four months anguish and hard work by Seigenthaler.
If you are interested in joining in our planned lawsuit, please contact us.
Here is my response:
Hello,
I just finished reading your open letter on the home page, and wanted to address a few things that came to mind while reading it.
The style of your letter is quite inflammatory, not the fair and unbiased style you claim you would like Wikipedia to use. The guidelines posted on Wikipedia for article creation and modification point out that articles ought to be unbiased, especially on controversial issues.
You claim that the Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation and those who volunteer content do not “consider themselves responsible” and so are therefore not “accountable for the content”. I have added content to Wikipedia, and I do feel responsible and accountable for it. If I am to take your letter literally, I would have to conclude that you’ve just lied or that you would claim that I am lying now. At best your aim was to get people fired up about the situation, regardless of whether they suspend reason and rationality in doing so. The claim that “They believe themselves to be above the law” is in the same vein.
Your first aim for the lawsuit is that you wish to “expose the inherent faults and flaws of the WIkipedia online encyclopedia”. What do you believe to be the “inherent faults and flaws”? I believe it is that there is too little accountability - people ought to stand by what they say on an issue or in the article they’ve written on a scientific topic - but that doesn’t mean the system is irreparable or even legally requiring change.
Your second aim involves accountability. What measures would you have imposed to keep Wikipedia from falling prey to vandals, yet keep the anyone-is-an-author trait that has made it a great resource?
While legally speaking there may be something to your third claim, I do not know what it is. I am not extensively knowledgeable about the laws regarding libel. I like to believe that I possess common sense, however, and I believe that common sense says that seeking monetary damages in this situation is ridiculous. If my name were smeared on Wikipedia, as John Seigenthaler’s was, I’d simply edit it to reflect the truth. Why did he have to wait four months to do have someone else do this when he could have done it himself? If you are referring to a period of four months when he was not aware of it, then your letter is at best misleading and at worst an outright lie.
People who come to the site and read something like that and believe it without checking the source, or even going to the front page and seeing “Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”, are probably not the ones you’re worried about. If you’re seeking monetary damages, you must think that a person or a business lost out on a potential customer or business deal because of it. I doubt the people who would be so gullible as to believe whatever any nice-looking website tells them are the ones conducting business deals, and I speak for myself when I say that I do not want any of them as customers.
If you wish to help improve Wikipedia’s reliability, then I believe that a lawsuit is not the best way to go about it. Make your complaints known and provide a solution or at least some discussion on the issue. If you’ve done this and received a negative response from Wikimedia, say so. This lawsuit appears to me to simply be an attempt to leech off of a successful organization and exploit its high profile for your own benefit. Am I wrong? Then tell the world why.
Brian Donovan
Much ado about nothing eh?
Technorati Tags: lawsuit, letter, wikipedia
January 10th, 2006 at 02.06
[…] oint. So let’s face up to it, resolve it, and figure out where everyone stands… Local Insanity: Wikipedia Lawsuit I ran across a […]
February 24th, 2007 at 13.03
Listen moron, “I believe that common sense says that seeking monetary damages in this situation is ridiculous. If my name were smeared on Wikipedia, as John Seigenthaler’s was, I’d simply edit it to reflect the truth. ” this is so unbelievably naive, it angers me. I just discovered recently that someone had written about me in a post about themselves. It was wrong, it misleading, it was defamatory and I will be that hundreds of people will have read it. So it’s not as easy as “I’d simply edit it..” the damage has been done. It’s all very well for Wikipedia to say material can be edited, but you know after someone’s reputation is smeared, how accountable are the people that run Wikipedia? Not at all. In the real world people are held accountable, but not, it seems on Wikipedia. I will devote my every energy to ensuring some come legal accountability is brough to it.
February 13th, 2008 at 12.16
I agree with Tony. You would be surprised as to how many character assissinations happen on wiki. If you try and simply “edit” it someone can come back 5 minutes later and undo what you just did. Even if you have concrete evidence that 100% beyond a doubt refutes the original claim. Is wiki good for some subjects? Yes it is. However is it bad for others? YES it is. They need to change their policies to exclude people and businesses. It is too easy for someone to write an article that is not true. In my opinion they should do away with the whole thing once and for all! The internet would be better off without it’s misleading BS.
February 15th, 2008 at 17.27
Wow, another comment. And on an article that’s two years old. Thanks for posting John, as it gave me another opportunity to think about this situation. Here’s what I thought when I re-read my own post:
First, I didn’t really feel that upset about the letter that was posted on WikipediaClassAction.org. Maybe that means I’m more cynical now, or maybe it means I’ve lost interest in this stuff, or maybe it means I agree with it more. Who knows?
John, you’re right that someone could come back and undo your “fixing” of the article. And you’re also right that the damage may already be done, but I’m just wondering how exactly you think it’s going to hurt? I can think of one plausible scenario that is becoming more common all the time: applying for a job. It’s almost guaranteed that you’ll be googled, and if one of the results is a Wikipedia entry that mischaracterizes you, this is a legitimate concern.
At the same time I stand by my assertion that people who are aware of what Wikipedia is will not take what it says as the gospel truth without looking for confirmation elsewhere, and I’ll say again that I would not work at a company that would. So what are we looking out for by trying to shut down Wikipedia? Gullible people, effectively, and those who will be negatively affected by them.
Does this warrant shutting Wikipedia down? No, I don’t think so. Does it warrant suing the owners for libel? No. Does it warrant restricting access to editing Wikipedia’s articles to registered users? Yes, and that is a reversal of opinion from when I originally wrote this article.
I typically use Wikipedia for technical and mathematical information, which does not have the same problem, so I was not particularly sensitive to the problems it might pose. Having spent an additional two years in the world I now see more of the point.