Character Assasination: A false Wikipedia ‘biography’

I agree with your suspicions. I find it odd that he complaining about it yet he NEVER bothered to fix it himself?! That makes no sense.

But what I find really odd is that the real point of the article is arguing against immunity for ISPs. Exactly what does that have to do with anything?! I have no idea what Seigenthaler is doing nowadays, but I get the impression he’s a front-man for trial attorney’s wanting to sue deep pocketed internet companies. Can you imagine the money that could be made suing search engines and ISPs every time a libelous statement is posted on the internet! An egregious story here, an outrageous story there, and the next thing you know the public is clamoring to eliminate ISPs current immunity.

This story is a ruse, no doubt about it.

Ima

Libel must prove that the person being sued knowingly created and spread false information that a reasonable person would find damaging to the injured person. If you repeat what you heard around the water cooler or was in some supermarket tabloid, then you did not create it and unless you knew it to be totally false, could not be found liable. One of the trickiest thing in a libel case is proving who started the lie. If it was not so difficult then there would be many more people sued for slander.

Community forums are the last place I expect to see veracity. Much of what is posted is opinion or garbage meant to flame someone. Wikipedia is a great idea in community involvement that could never work. An analogy would be the open source community trying to produce better software for all of us and a few feel an urge to turn that information into viruses and Trojan horses. The good work of the majority is ruined by a few.

Some dedicated editors monitor every wiki entry on particular subjects. The majority of topics are not verified. Let’s see, what can we add to Mr. Dvoraks entry?

I’ve been posting on Wikipedia for some time and never knew that function..thanks

Google’s Tactics Result In Notice To Sue For Libel By dotWORLDS

Google’s refusal to take decisive measures to remove libelous content from its search engine forces Domain Names Registrar dotWORLDS to serve notice of its intention to commence an action for defamation and slander.

For Immediate Release

LONDON/Dec. 19, 2005 — Google’s refusal to take decisive measures to remove what dotWORLDS claims is libelous content from its search engine has caused the Domain Names Registrar to serve notice of its intention to commence an action for defamation and slander.

Despite an agreement by Google to withdraw a number of allegedly defamatory postings from its worldwide search engines, dotWORLDS (www.dotworlds.net) CEO Brian Retkin claims its gestures are “simply token and a continuation of its policy of obstruction and delay.”

“In contrast to what many see as a total disregard for the reputation of its users, Google vehemently protects its own privacy,” said Retkin. According to a September 4, 2005 story in the Sunday Times Online by Dominic Rushe, a recent public relations fiasco occurred after Google banned its staff from talking to CNet reporters for one year. It transpired that the ban was Google’s response to CNet’s publication of personal information about Dr. Eric Schmidt, Google’s CEO. It was then learned that not only was the information already in the public domain, but the same information about Schmidt was also available on Google’s own websites.

“Google’s reaction to CNet was inconsistent with its handling of a man who had been falsely accused as a pedophile by his wife during divorce hearings,” said Retkin. His name and photograph were posted on a police website but were removed after the charges were dropped. However, having picked up the story, Google did not remove the pictures or postings it had published on its search engine. According to Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum (WPF), the page remained accessible through Google and was only removed after a long struggle.

“DotWORLDS believes Google’s refusal to fully address libel on its websites is a global problem,” said Retkin. “There is little to stop the popular search engine from being hijacked by unscrupulous individuals for their own purposes. Google has managed to defend its position by relying on the unique status of American law.”

“The biggest obstacle that dotWORLDS will face is the court’s grappling with Google’s defense that it cannot judge what is defamatory and that it cannot be in the position of having to make such judgments – which in the defamation area are notoriously difficult, even for a court to make,” said Retkin. “This would be coupled with the pre-eminence of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, which is always given the benefit of the doubt in the United States and which has often proven to be a viable defense in recent Internet-related cases.”

With such uncertainty, dotWORLDS may find it difficult to prevail, however it says it plans to fight its case from a new perspective in order to succeed where others have failed.

“If dotWORLDS does succeed, the ramifications for Google could be immense,” said Retkin. “Up to nine billion pages could require proper scrutiny, putting Google in need of a larger staff and greater resources to ensure it remains on the right side of the law.”