Talk:Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident/Archive 1

message: Wikipedia is quite irresponsible.  I'm surprised he did not sue them as they now have ties with Google.  Wikipedia may have been lucky this time, if luck is even something that can happen in cyberspace. —preceding unsigned comment by 142.77.9.145 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 5 December 2005
: Wikipedia is most likely immune to being sued for this, given that the law in the US currently gives ISPs, online forum hosting sites, and other such places (which don't exercise strict editorial control over content) wide immunity.  Further, when notified of the error, Wikipedia was very fast at correcting the falsehoods.  Alledged ties with Google (what ties, BTW?) have nothing to do with it.  --EngineerScotty 23:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, EngineerScotty. Wiki was a responsible citizen. The operative law is the Communications Decency Act, specifically 47 USC 230(c)(1). Because Wiki is not involved in editorial control before material appears, Wiki is therefore immune. Some operative cases in this area are Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Gentry v. eBay, and Barrett v. Rosenthal. Wiki acted exactly in the fashion by which courts in other cases have praised ISPs. JuanOso 22:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreed, very irresponsible 

message: is for adding a section to the end of an article.  That's it--it's a shortcut.  (I used it for this posting).
While an "opinions" section might be interesting; any opinion you want to offer can be placed either on the discussion page (as we are doing now), or on your own homepage.  Adding a third page to each article, and replumbing the system to accomodate, is probably too large of a change to the site software to consider.  --EngineerScotty 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The little + sign 

message: John brought up the case of falsehoods on politican's pages, as we go into the US election. He said that they might stay for 4-5 months, just like the falsehoods of in his bio. I think we'd catch them a little quicker than that, seeing how they're hot topics compared to him. Of course, the interview ended before Jimmy could note this.  --  user:zanimum
Isn't it ironic? Seigenthaler says Wikipedia is unreliable & that he'd never use it. Yet by making his critisms public (taking it to CNN, no less), he's givin Wikipedia more exposure. Likely more visitors/editors have visited Wikipedia since, then ever before. GoodDay 21:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, this is unwanted publicity for Wikipedia. GoodDay 22:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, it was only a matter of time. You can fool some of the people all the time or all the people some of the time, but not all the people, all the time. And time just ran out. --Agamemnon2 10:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a remark

message: According to the John Seigenthaler Sr. article, he discovered the article in September. I suppose this is correct since he notified Jimbo in October. It was obviously not in November since he had already notified Jimbo by that time. Having said that, this mistake was caught within an hour which is good :-) Nil Einne 00:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: Most talk about the op-ed has concentrated on John's highlighting of the perceived problems with wikipedia. However read the op-ed, it appears he's just as much highlighting his perceived problems with the law in regards to defamation by internet users. Personally I seriously disagree with him since he appears to be suggesting that ISPs either should be liable or required to give up their users just because someone may have been defamed. But regardless, I suppose we should mention the defamation law aspect of the op-ed/controversy too... Nil Einne 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for the op-ed

message: This is kinda OT for this talk page but I hope it's okay since it's relevant. Anyway I'm thinking we should, add a few words to the disambugation page mentioning the controversy. Since the controversy is such a hot topic right now (when it dies down, we can reconsider), and most people visiting the disambig are likely to want to find out about the controversy, I think it's relevant and useful. Currently, I don't think the disambig page gives sufficient info and so many people reading it will not be able to tell without visiting both articles which person they're looking for. It doesn't help that the son's a journalist too I expect. Indeed, if they just visit the article about the son, they might not realise they have the wrong page. Therefore I feel that for now, we should say something like "and is the subject of a controversy involving Wikipedia". Nil Einne 20:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I know I'm supposed to be bold but I'm usually not. However I decided to be this time and have carried out my suggestions. I suppose it's the best way to get feedback as to what people think anyway :-) Nil Einne 20:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About the son and disambiguation pages

message: I'm glad to see this was pulled out of the main Seigenthaler article. However, I think it would only be fair, and truly NPOV, if the article included some of the criticisms that have been made of Seigenthaler, both within and without the wikimmunity, as well as his criticisms of Wikipedia (To wit, that he could have just edited the article and not said anything; that he appears to be a hypocrite as a defender of First Amendment rights who suddenly forgets all about his defamer's due process rights when it's his reputation; that he tarred every editor with the same broad brush and seemed to be another Old Media person attacking the Internet).
I mean, if this was about anything other than Wikipedia would we recognize it as totally fair and complete? I doubt it. Daniel Case 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this question was asked to Seigenthaler in an interview (why didn't he just edit the article). Anyone know his response? I'll try to look it up tomorrow. Gflores Talk 16:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, Jimbo could and did impose this change effectivly by decree, with little discussion. The idea had often been discussed -- indeed it was high on the "pereenial proposals" list, and the resposnes had always been more or less "will never happen" "against our basic philosophy" and the like -- every indicatioin I saw is that prior to thsi decree, ther was a large (but by no means unaminous) consensus agaisnt any such restriction. DES (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: His reposne on the NPR interview was that he "didn't want to have anythign to do with wikipedia" with the implication that by editing he would be joining the project. See my comments below. DES (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are we being fair to ourselves here?

message: I didn't hear the NPR interview, but did he come out and say "I didn't edit the article"?  Someone did, removing the anon stub and replacing it with Seigenthaler's bio from the First Ammendment Center, an edit that was removed as a copyvio:
07:06, 23 September 2005 . . 69.172.115.157 (This is the correct bio. The previous entry was bogus.)
(Technical aside: This edit is now in the deleted history of John Seigenthaler Sr./temp2 because of the various moves and deletions.)
I'm not sure how much this matters, but it is important that we do not simply assume that he did not edit it or that it was not edited on his behalf. Gamaliel 06:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Seigenthaler edit the article? 

message: Would it be possible to post the URL of the orginal writer of the now notorious article Here On This Discussion Page, not as a part of the article it accompanies.  Or would that be an unwarranted invasion of that writer's privacy.  Perhaps it would be.  Can anyone offer any guidance on this? Marcopolo 03:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Question 

message: In a message posted at the Wikipedia Review.  Turns out that by absolute fluke, the IP which posted it also ran a web server so the thing was traced back to a company.  Says it's gonna be in the papers soon.  I'm not editing the main article, because I can't be bothered to think about prose and layout etc. - Hahnchen 03:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Daniel Brandt]] says he's found the guy