Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Wikipedia and slander


Recommended Posts

I was looking up Jacqui Smith (former Home Secretary and centrepiece of my police photograph) out of interest to see how tall she was and hence the rogh heights of the police around her.

The DuckDuckGo search gave this summary from wiki:

 

image.png.1f68d4af2a8fa0f15c427d5d3e12a6a8.png

 

This, as in the murder of Iraqis, was a short-lived edit on 2 June lasting 7 hours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacqui_Smith&diff=960474784&oldid=960426588

This means that you can go into a wiki page, edit any accusation you wish into the first paragraph of that page, and it will be returned as the first visble search result for over a week.

This seems to me rather reckless on their part.

In general I find wiki a handy resource but it usually skips key parts of people's lives if they're slightly dodgy so it's a stepping off point rather than a comprehensive resource.

Any other examples / thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer companies not to be sued in that way for someone else editing them if possible.

I know it's not your point, but it always annoys me when people go on about all the dead people in Iraq and no one mentions who actually did it. They say "We invaded and then a million people died" as if the invasion was actually what killed them.

Nope. They removed an evil dictator who it turned out was the only thing stopping the violent people who live there from killing each other, as they are incapable of living peacefully with others that are different. Of course if they admitted that then they wouldn't also be able to claim that "diversity makes us all stronger" at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, xyz said:

I'd prefer companies not to be sued in that way for someone else editing them if possible.

I know it's not your point, but it always annoys me when people go on about all the dead people in Iraq and no one mentions who actually did it. They say "We invaded and then a million people died" as if the invasion was actually what killed them.

Nope. They removed an evil dictator who it turned out was the only thing stopping the violent people who live there from killing each other, as they are incapable of living peacefully with others that are different. Of course if they admitted that then they wouldn't also be able to claim that "diversity makes us all stronger" at the same time.

I agree with you on the war but I think there needs to be better legal definition of internet bodies.

Wikipedia is to my mind a publisher as much as any newspaper.  It may wish to allow non-employees to update its pages but it should then queue them for employees to check those changes before releasing them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand @Frank Hovis. Are you blaming Google for scraping inaccurate information, or WIkipedia for not spotting a troll? It was removed within a few hours as you state. To suggest that anyone can do it, and it'll be up for a week, is wrong... Give it a go, report how you get on. Your edit won't last 2 minutes I suspect...

I'm not defending Wikipedia, it's a cesspit of SJW editors, but most "academic" places are.

 

2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Wikipedia is to my mind a publisher as much as any newspaper.  It may wish to allow non-employees to update its pages but it should then queue them for employees to check those changes before releasing them.

You do realise there are 140,000 edits a day? :S

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frank Hovis said:

I agree with you on the war but I think there needs to be better legal definition of internet bodies.

Wikipedia is to my mind a publisher as much as any newspaper.  It may wish to allow non-employees to update its pages but it should then queue them for employees to check those changes before releasing them.

If you let them be sued it means that places that gather information need a lot of money to survive otherwise they will be sued into non-existence even if the people running it did nothing wrong.

I would say it's a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spunko said:

I don't understand @Frank Hovis. Are you blaming Google for scraping inaccurate information, or WIkipedia for not spotting a troll? It was removed within a few hours as you state. To suggest that anyone can do it, and it'll be up for a week, is wrong... Give it a go, report how you get on. Your edit won't last 2 minutes I suspect...

I'm not defending Wikipedia, it's a cesspit of SJW editors, but most "academic" places are.

Wiki; they should be approving changes to pages that are purporting to be factually correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, xyz said:

If you let them be sued it means that places that gather information need a lot of money to survive otherwise they will be sued into non-existence even if the people running it did nothing wrong.

I would say it's a bad thing.

If I made up a lot of filth about a celebrity and sent it into a newspaper and they published it then they could, and should, be sued.

If I edited the same false information into a Wiki page and they published it then they should also be sued.

Surely?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frank Hovis said:

If I made up a lot of filth about a celebrity and sent it into a newspaper and they published it then they could, and should, be sued.

If I edited the same false information into a Wiki page and they published it then they should also be sued.

Surely?

I would say there is a difference between a newspaper and an online collaborative platform that anyone can edit.

I'm sure people say slanderous things on here all the time, should this site be sued and closed down?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that wiki had tightened up who can edit something on there now. That you have to be of the right ideology to be able to do so.

It was a fantastic idea when it began. Increasingly it moved to becoming US-centric IMPO of the world. But then it became, well, it became like the MSM and social media. Very disappointing as it could have been a superb knowledge base but now how can you trust what is written.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, xyz said:

Nope. They removed an evil dictator who it turned out was the only thing stopping the violent people who live there from killing each other had offered oil transactions in a currency other than USD.

FTFY

A Mr. Gadaffi tried the same thing and was therefore similarly an evil dictator and had to be "removed." 

Next up with the same oil currency trick: Vladimir Putin of Rooshya. Don't think the "traditional approach to the problem" is going to work quite as well with him though as he has a fucking big scary military. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, xyz said:

I'm sure people say slanderous things on here all the time, should this site be sued and closed down?

@XYY you are a cunt.

cunt.gif

See you  in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I agree with you on the war but I think there needs to be better legal definition of internet bodies.

Wikipedia is to my mind a publisher as much as any newspaper.  It may wish to allow non-employees to update its pages but it should then queue them for employees to check those changes before releasing them.

Just like CNN, the BBC, the Guardian etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, xyz said:

I'd prefer companies not to be sued in that way for someone else editing them if possible.

I know it's not your point, but it always annoys me when people go on about all the dead people in Iraq and no one mentions who actually did it. They say "We invaded and then a million people died" as if the invasion was actually what killed them.

Nope. They removed an evil dictator who it turned out was the only thing stopping the violent people who live there from killing each other, as they are incapable of living peacefully with others that are different. Of course if they admitted that then they wouldn't also be able to claim that "diversity makes us all stronger" at the same time.

what about 500,000 Iraqi children dead from US sanctions ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but is the approach used by papers re 'truth vs legal' the 'right one'?

  • Sure, I don't want them publishing made up stuff because of the fear of litigation.
  • But I also don't want them to be scared to publish truth because of the threat of litigation.
  • I also don't want them to make stuff up when they're not particularly fearful of litigation (they could say what they like about me and I'm not really in a position to defend myself and they could buy me out for a relatively small sum of money).

I'd suggest that our approach to the publication of truth vs lies isn't particularly strong or 'good' for the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely everybody already knows that Wikipedia is just a first approximation to get a rough idea of the terrain in a given subject and not to be taken as 100% correct? For that application it's pretty good. It's certainly better than the information-starved days of my childhood when even if you were lucky enough to have a set of hard copy encyclopedias or Microsoft Encarta on CD you might go to look something up and find either no entry or just a couple of paragraphs with no depth or any way of following links to more detailed/primary information.

Newspapers follow the publishing model and they publish lies/half truths/incomplete information all the time, that's not a perfect model either.

Edited by Darude
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

Wiki; they should be approving changes to pages that are purporting to be factually correct.

Sorry Frank but I don't think you've thought this through.

Change Wikipedia to DOSBODS and that means I'm responsible for any old shite that people post on here? Hmm..

Thankfully, the law allows for removal/notice first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

If I made up a lot of filth about a celebrity and sent it into a newspaper and they published it then they could, and should, be sued.

If I edited the same false information into a Wiki page and they published it then they should also be sued.

Surely?

But you can be sued in either case... Luckily most lawyers won't waste their time with the latter situation as it will have been swiftly removed. Libel and slander laws work on the basis of proven effect, i.e. if nobody read a libellous comment then is it really as damaging as one read by millions? No. If Wikipedia were alerted to the vexatious comment, but left it up and then it subsequently was read by millions then I think you'd have a point. Policing the internet isn't really something we need more of.

Edited by spunko
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Darude said:

Surely everybody already knows that Wikipedia is just a first approximation to get a rough idea of the terrain in a given subject and not to be taken as 100% correct? For that application it's pretty good. It's certainly better than the information-starved days of my childhood when even if you were lucky enough to have a set of hard copy encyclopedias or Microsoft Encarta on CD you might go to look something up and find either no entry or just a couple of paragraphs with no depth or any way of following links to more detailed/primary information.

Newspapers follow the publishing model and they publish lies/half truths/incomplete information all the time, that's not a perfect model either.

You mean Wikipedia is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I'm astonished. :Old:

Sandstorm was epic btw.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Funn3r said:

FTFY

A Mr. Gadaffi tried the same thing and was therefore similarly an evil dictator and had to be "removed." 

Next up with the same oil currency trick: Vladimir Putin of Rooshya. Don't think the "traditional approach to the problem" is going to work quite as well with him though as he has a fucking big scary military. 

Mr Putin can have the oil currency as soon as he promises to protect Saudi against all comers.

He's far to smart to fall for that (I hope)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...