Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Our first defamation case?

 

 

Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


dgerard at gmail

May 2, 2008, 1:53 AM

Post #1 of 8 (563 views)
Permalink
Our first defamation case?

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/05/02

We have EFF onside, so CDA Section 230 protection is probably going to
see us right on this one.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


mbimmler at gmail

May 2, 2008, 2:30 AM

Post #2 of 8 (532 views)
Permalink
Re: Our first defamation case? [In reply to]

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/05/02
>
> We have EFF onside, so CDA Section 230 protection is probably going to
> see us right on this one.


http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/BauerSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf

page 26:
"Plaintiff has informed [Wikimedia Foundation] that the statements
about her are false and defamatory but [Wikimedia Foundation] has
refused to remove the statements despite the fact that Brian Lamb the
founder of [Wikimedia Foundation] has stated publicly that his website
is accountable and that mistakes are removed in minutes".

Uh, right, "Brian Lamb the founder of [WF=Wikimedia Foundation]?"
Jimmy, is this your new alias? Or has someone failed on his research
here pretty badly?

Michael

--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler [at] gmail

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


Anthere9 at yahoo

May 2, 2008, 2:58 AM

Post #3 of 8 (512 views)
Permalink
Re: Our first defamation case? [In reply to]

David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/05/02
>
> We have EFF onside, so CDA Section 230 protection is probably going to
> see us right on this one.
>
>
> - d.

Nope. There was also the référé in France last fall.

However, note that contrariwise to this case, we actually removed the
alleged diffaming comments. The judge estimated that we reacted in a
suitable fashion for a website provider and rejected the request for a
financial compensation by the plaintiff.

Ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


thomas.dalton at gmail

May 2, 2008, 3:18 AM

Post #4 of 8 (518 views)
Permalink
Re: Our first defamation case? [In reply to]

2008/5/2 Michael Bimmler <mbimmler [at] gmail>:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> > http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/05/02
> >
> > We have EFF onside, so CDA Section 230 protection is probably going to
> > see us right on this one.
>
>
> http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/BauerSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf
>
> page 26:
> "Plaintiff has informed [Wikimedia Foundation] that the statements
> about her are false and defamatory but [Wikimedia Foundation] has
> refused to remove the statements despite the fact that Brian Lamb the
> founder of [Wikimedia Foundation] has stated publicly that his website
> is accountable and that mistakes are removed in minutes".
>
> Uh, right, "Brian Lamb the founder of [WF=Wikimedia Foundation]?"
> Jimmy, is this your new alias? Or has someone failed on his research
> here pretty badly?

I think that's probably the worst bit of false reporting about
Wiki(m|p)edia I've ever seen - and I've seen some very bad reporting!

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


mbimmler at gmail

May 2, 2008, 3:33 AM

Post #5 of 8 (516 views)
Permalink
Re: Our first defamation case? [In reply to]

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:
> 2008/5/2 Michael Bimmler <mbimmler [at] gmail>:
>
>
> > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> > > http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/05/02
> > >
> > > We have EFF onside, so CDA Section 230 protection is probably going to
> > > see us right on this one.
> >
> >
> > http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/BauerSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf
> >
> > page 26:
> > "Plaintiff has informed [Wikimedia Foundation] that the statements
> > about her are false and defamatory but [Wikimedia Foundation] has
> > refused to remove the statements despite the fact that Brian Lamb the
> > founder of [Wikimedia Foundation] has stated publicly that his website
> > is accountable and that mistakes are removed in minutes".
> >
> > Uh, right, "Brian Lamb the founder of [WF=Wikimedia Foundation]?"
> > Jimmy, is this your new alias? Or has someone failed on his research
> > here pretty badly?
>
> I think that's probably the worst bit of false reporting about
> Wiki(m|p)edia I've ever seen - and I've seen some very bad reporting!
>

I was just wondering whether it might be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Lamb
this guy who founded C-SPAN...maybe someone mistook us for C-SPAN :p

Michael


--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler [at] gmail

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


thomas.dalton at gmail

May 2, 2008, 3:38 AM

Post #6 of 8 (523 views)
Permalink
Re: Our first defamation case? [In reply to]

2008/5/2 Michael Bimmler <mbimmler [at] gmail>:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> > http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/05/02
> >
> > We have EFF onside, so CDA Section 230 protection is probably going to
> > see us right on this one.
>
>
> http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/BauerSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf
>
> page 26:
> "Plaintiff has informed [Wikimedia Foundation] that the statements
> about her are false and defamatory but [Wikimedia Foundation] has
> refused to remove the statements despite the fact that Brian Lamb the
> founder of [Wikimedia Foundation] has stated publicly that his website
> is accountable and that mistakes are removed in minutes".
>
> Uh, right, "Brian Lamb the founder of [WF=Wikimedia Foundation]?"
> Jimmy, is this your new alias? Or has someone failed on his research
> here pretty badly?

Actually, it's even worse than that. The amended complaint was filed 9
months after the article was deleted... Getting someone's name wrong
is one thing, but the entire point being nonsense is quite another...

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


en.wp.st47 at gmail

May 2, 2008, 11:29 AM

Post #7 of 8 (517 views)
Permalink
Re: Our first defamation case? [In reply to]

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail>
wrote:

> 2008/5/2 Michael Bimmler <mbimmler [at] gmail>:
> > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> > > http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/05/02
> > >
> > > We have EFF onside, so CDA Section 230 protection is probably going
> to
> > > see us right on this one.
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/BauerSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf
> >
> > page 26:
> > "Plaintiff has informed [Wikimedia Foundation] that the statements
> > about her are false and defamatory but [Wikimedia Foundation] has
> > refused to remove the statements despite the fact that Brian Lamb the
> > founder of [Wikimedia Foundation] has stated publicly that his website
> > is accountable and that mistakes are removed in minutes".
> >
> > Uh, right, "Brian Lamb the founder of [WF=Wikimedia Foundation]?"
> > Jimmy, is this your new alias? Or has someone failed on his research
> > here pretty badly?
>
> Actually, it's even worse than that. The amended complaint was filed 9
> months after the article was deleted... Getting someone's name wrong
> is one thing, but the entire point being nonsense is quite another...
>
>
You are correct: Getting someone's name wrong is a mistake, the entire thing
being nonsense is the American legal system.




--
DCollins/ST47
Administrator, en.wikipedia.org
Channel Operator, irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia
Maintainer, Perlwikipedia module
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


mgodwin at wikimedia

May 2, 2008, 4:54 PM

Post #8 of 8 (520 views)
Permalink
Re: Our first defamation case? [In reply to]

Florence writes:

> However, note that contrariwise to this case, we actually removed the
> alleged diffaming comments. The judge estimated that we reacted in a
> suitable fashion for a website provider and rejected the request for a
> financial compensation by the plaintiff.

Note that there's no entry for "Barbara Bauer" on en.wiki at present,
and there hasn't been for some time.


--Mike





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.