I know a lot of you guys over the time we've been here have criticized Wikipedia for the inaccurate information some of its webpages contain...

Apparently, someone might have taken it a little too far.

I have zero problem with this. You can't make up things out of whole cloth and then present them as fact. Here in Washington, our Speaker of the House implied that Richard Petty was a drunk driver, and that sort of "element" would be attracted to a NASCAR track if it was built here in Western Washington. Hours later, the news caught hold of this, and Mr. Speaker was roasted to such a crunchy crisp that the flame wars that go on here would bring on E.coli poisoning by comparison.

Only when people are actually held responsible for what they put on the internet (Thanks again, Mr. Case, you asshat) will this sort of "I can put up whatever screed I want, and see what sticks" attitude go away. Good on ya, Fuzzy!

Travis has an excellent point. (BTW.. I heard the House Speaker's comments on news radio yesterday and almost crapped my pants!!)

The only way Wikipedia will work is if the submitted information is based on fact and the submitter can back up that/those facts. Otherwise, it's considered slander and the submitter can be held responsible. This lawsuit is totally justified. My $0.02.

Please note for those that won't RTFA, Wikipedia is not being sued, the poster of the information is being sued.


--Mike

A couple of points I've been pondering about this....

- Is this the first publicized incident of someone sueing over information on Wiki?
- Why doesn't this surprise me?

But Wiki's being brought into it to get the personal information of the numbnut who posted everything, yes?

For a second there, I thought you were talking of the *other* Speaker of the House in Washington (DC, that is). There would've been much more than just a roasting over an open blast furnace.

Not into the lawsuit. Apparently from the publically-available info in the article's history, they were able to track the edit down to a computer at a Miami consulting firm. That firm is being sued to disclose the identity of the numbnut, "because the law won't allow him to sue St. Petersburg-based Wikipedia."

I think that it's a noble idea for this particular lawsuit to take place, because I'd be willing to believe that all of us would want to do something like that.

What I don't like is the kind of precedent something like this might set.

Don't get me wrong- I do agree that certain things people post on the Internet about certain other people are false. And I believe that if you find out that someone's done something like that, you've got every right to try and find out who that person is.

What worries me is in this lawsuit happy society of ours that someone somewhere in the world, whether it be in the penthouse apartment or the wooden shack in the sticks of Montana, could instantly jump to a conclusion that a statement (like "anyone who doesn't believe in (insert philosophy here) is a traitor") instantly applies to them, and they could sue to find out who it is.

I doubt something like that would ever happen, but it just bugs me to think that someone might do that.

Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. I would like to think that if some jackbag filed a lawsuit that ridiculously frivelous, it would not hold up in any court.

You're exactly right, Kevin...but there's been so many ridiculous court cases brought over the years (lawsuits and otherwise) that I wouldn't be surprised if I ever heard of something frivolous happening as a result of this lawsuit.