I just had to share this with every one. It seems that someone is preparing a class action lawsuit against Wikipedia.com claiming that untrue information was posted on the site and resulted in damages to individuals and businesses. They have started a website (www.wikipediaclassaction.org) and are gathering people with complaints to try and shut down the site. The site had an email address posted so I sent them this email:
To Whom It May Concern:
I came across the information about your impending lawsuit against Wikipedia on your site today and I am very disturbed. I understand that there have been cases of incorrect information being posted on the Wikipedia website, however there is no call for an action of this type. The developers make no claims about the complete accuracy of any information found on Wikipedia. This is a site that is edited by the general public. That means everyone. While the editors strive to make sure that no one is placing false information on the site it is also up to us - the general public - to find these inaccuracies and edit them to correction. That is the whole basis of the site.
The Wikipedia is one of the most unique and groundbreaking resources online. The ability to look up information about any subject and find what others like you have posted is very valuable. To be able to add material to an article that you may have knowledge is also very valuable. Google has made an empire on collecting the world's information and making it available to all the world. A very lofty and estimable goal. Wikipedia has done the same within the context of an online encyclopedia. However, instead of only having one view point written by an editor that may not have any first-hand knowledge of the subject, we as readers have the ability to add to the richness of the content. We have the ability to add to the next user's experience.
This is a great tool that we cannot afford to lose. Please, reconsider your course of action regarding this matter.
Now most people would respond with a professional "thank you for your comment, however.." sort of response. However, that is not what happened. This is the response that I received:
From: WikipediaClassAction.org
You do not understand the issues here, so perhaps, it is best for you to sit this one out on the side.
Why must I become involved in the Wikipedia website? If there is offending or inaccurate content, about me, my business or family, why should I be required to become a user and edit the content?
I am interested to learn why you thought I would be interested in your comments.
Well, I thought they might be interested in hearing a viewpoint other than their own narrow agenda. Apparently I was wrong. Everyone, please send more mail to these people stating your opinion on their course of action.
Their email is: lawsuit@wikipediaclassaction.org
Their address is:
WikipedaClassAction.org
PO Box 998
Long Beach, NY 11561-0998
They also have phone numbers listed on their website if you would like to call them. Be polite (unlike them) but let them know that the Wikipedia is a great resource and an important tool for everyone.
89 comments:
http://newtechinc.blogspot.com/2005/12/my-brief-email-correspondence-with.html contians the very same answer.
i totally just called that guy and threatened to cook him egg salad... he said he would have me arrested for assault and that i would not be the first person put away for assault with an egg salad... he had no real answer but to say that the content is not legit... sometimes cause anyone can post... so shut down wiki, bbs and every other website for posting things that arent true... my site would be one of the first ones shut down cause im always lyin about something..;. i also informed the guy on the phone that i was in fact from new york and thet i would love to meet with him... he declined the invitation...
everyone should call 866.440.0680 and harass these assholes...
cause they have no clue... me and my girl even told him wed paypal him money if it was cause christmas was around the corner...
Yeah, read the posts on digg--the guy behind the site is fraudster Greg Lloyd Smith trying to intimidate and harass Wikipedia for exposing their fraudulent aid organization, QuakeAID. See the entry on OfficialWire, his "news" wire service:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OfficialWire
You really shouldn't call and harass these people. Even if they are assholes. If you want to save Wikipedia, this is most certainly not the way to get it done. If they are angry with wikipedia, disrespectful phone calls will only make them angrier. A respectful email will work better than you might think.
Please for the sake of wikipedia, don't harass anybody.
You should email him back and let me know that misinformation about his company, family, or himself could be found anywhere. On a blog, a News site, a billboard near the highway, a flyer some guys is handing out on the street, on the subway, in a grassroots magazine, in a dictionary... anywhere.
If you did find it in one of those places. You would not sue the means the information was published. You would sue the author of the content. Wikiapedia to me is just a means of sharing information and that it is the responsibility of the author to make sure it’s correct. Suing Wikiapedia is like suing a paper company for a flyer with misinformation on it.
Lastly, you can't stop information. Even if it’s wrong it’s still out there. And it’s up to the recipient of the information to determine if it is fact. So really this class action lawsuit should be aim towards the people who took the misinformation as fact. Not at the means by which it was shared.
hehe... i sent them an email. i'm waiting for a reply. this is actually kind of fun.
I am Nicholas COlyer from newtechinc.blogspot.com. And I indeed had the same response sent to me. Lets expose this sham.
Let's like leet ddos them and stuff and like go there and kill those noobs ;]
I just sent the guy an email. I wonder if I get the same reply. :P
To Whom it May Concern,
After carefully reading through your website, http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org, I have come to a simple conclusion that you're not interested in reading a disclaimer at the bottom of almost every page found on the Internet. If you'd take the time to click--and READ!--the little page, I think that your complaints are unfounded. It would probably have been less time consuming to read it than to take this sort of action.
For this, I've included a few simple links you might, hopefully, accidentally, click. At least one. They can be found that the bottom of the page.
Read through one of them. For me, the just of it says that Wikipedia is NOT responsible for what people place on their website. Granted, something that is said might be libel, it's not their fault that it's there. Report it, complain about it. Don't sue about it. Don't be a little child. They can fix that sort of thing.
On another note, the website is hosted in The United States, and the last time I checked, we/they had something called "freedom of speech." I'm not too terribly sure about this, but I believe you can visit a pretty reliable source here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech (Then again... you might like this one better: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/index.html I do, though that might be because I am a card carrying member of the aclu... nevertheless!)
Please be aware that any trouble you go through is futile. Though, kind of funny...
Now, here are some quotes, links and FUN!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-Wikipedia_disclaimers (Love this one.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer (Not a horrible read.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer (Bedtime story, perhaps?)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Avertissements_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9raux
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Aviso_Geral
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Limitaci%C3%B3n_general_de_responsabilidad
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Algemene_afwijzing_aansprakelijkheid
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Impressum
Oh! The quotes.
"DO NOT RELY UPON ANY INFORMATION FOUND IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION" (Oh yes!)
"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" (Well I'll be...)
etc. etc.
With love, luck and great zeal,
Xander.
May your hopes and dreams come true.
If you may find this letter offensive, please know, I'm 17.
I thought there was something funny about that site he linked to showing "recent news articles." If you click on the About Us link there's a crytic statement which begins by offering services to present the correct "spin" in corporate press releases and then goes on to a high mindeed mission statement about journalistic integrity.
I got the same autoresponse, but I was not so cordial in my original e-mail.
My note began "I'm curious, what bloodsucking coven of attorneys/lamprey are behind
this one? You don't list your firm's name on the website, you don't
even list it on your domain registration info. Afraid of getting
smeared for the smear campaign you're trying to engage in?"
I wonder how many people had hoped to actually join the class action only to get a snide autoreply.
They must honestly think that Wikipedia has done something to slander them, and will ruin their "reputation". Dude, no one goes there to look you up. Trust me.
This must be a $$$$$ issue.
--matt gonzales
This is the most illogical lawsuit ever!
Their intentions are to:
1.
"Expose the inherent faults and flaws of the Wikipedia online encyclopedia."
...uh... Hello! Everyone knows that Wiki isn't perfect! There is just too much access and not enought control... but still the concept is awesome!
2.
"Force Wikimedia Foundation Inc., through legal action, to change its current practices that permit anyone to post content to their website, without formal attribution and without recourse back to Wikimedia Foundation and or the author of the content"
force? um... Wikimedia is already taking those steps on its own for quality control purposes. Soon only registered users will be allowed to post and edit.
this goal falls mute.
3.
"ecover substantial monetary damages, on behalf of those who have suffered as a direct result of Wikimedia's flawed business model"
please as if...
4.
"Establish a precedent that will ensure similar websites are held responsible for their content"
hmmm... pretty sure a precedent already exists... its called our constitution and bill of rights, of which FREEDOM OF SPEACH kinda covers this area...
What idiots, I emailed them telling them so.
This is a prime example of how some people will lie, cheat or steal to make a buck, and then attempt to hide behind the legal system to protect the guilty.
I would love to see some of those self proclaimed hacking wizards bring this guy to his knees.
This Greg Lloyd Smith and his wife need to be taught a lesson.
Any one that adds thier name to the class action also needs to be slammed.
From: Sean Tierney - legaltech at gmail dot com
Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: lawsuit@wikipediaclassaction.org
Date: Dec 12, 2005 9:04 PM
Subject: your class action
is meritless and you do a disservice not only to the entire legal
community by perpetuating the stereotypical image of lawyers as being
ambulance chasers, but if you succeed you also do a great disservice
to humanity by damaging a valuable free service. Wikipedia is an
absolute asset to the human race 99% of the time. the very nature of
what they offer is such that occasionally defacements like the one
that your client encountered will occur, but eventually they are
discovered and righted by the masses of people contributing content.
Do you plan to sue every open-access bulletin board service that hosts
anonymous posts that contain false statements in them?? Probably not.
So why pick on Wikipedia... the only conceivable explanation is
because there's potential money to be won and that's a despicable
justification. grow up.
sean
What a douchebag.
Because we live in America, anyone can write just about anything about anyone or anything. True or false, it doesn't really matter what the content is.
Thank you to our legal system, though, we also have the right to sue anyone for just about anything.
Does anyone remember the Hustler v. Falwell case?
I also email yesterday not as polite as you
From Me:
"You appear to be in contravention of the *"GNU Free Documentation License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediapb.:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License
more crap from bottom feeding lawyers and incompetent ones at that, in my humble opinion. "
reply:
"Hello,
You do not understand the issues here, so perhaps, it is best for you to sit this one out on the side.
Why must I become involved in the Wikipedia website? If there is offending or inaccurate content, about me, my business or family, why should I be required to become a user and edit the content?
I am interested to learn why you thought I would be interested in your comments.
Regards, "
just the same standard reply
cheers admin..
Did a similar post myself http://www.utopiaoverip.com/?p=117 and received a letter to the people at the site as a comment. This is ridiculous. I hope that the courts do not stand up for this absurd class action.
I got the same response.. either copy and paste or automated. Must be automated as it was a quick response and I assume their flooded with mail right now.
Class action lawyers, tort lawyers, etc., claim to advocate for the voiceless, yet nearly every one of them makes more money than the people they sue.
They are the lowest form of humanity. Reasoning with them is futile.
If there is a hell, every one of them deserve to burn in it
I visited http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org and was astonished to see an exact copy of the wikipedia logo displayed on the site. Sure, its been "modified" to SUPPOSEDLY comply with the "fair use" doctrine (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html), however, I would make several observations:
1. This type of conduct does not help the credibility of their case. If its not appropriate to display written material that misrepresents the subject, how is it appropriate to display graphic material that misrepresents the subject?
2. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the "modified" image originated from wikipedia.org. I'm no legal expert in this area, but it seems to me that surely there's some sort of legal issue with impersonation, etc.
3. The IP address for www.wikipediaclassaction.org is: 66.193.231.105. Which http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl indicates is in a Time Warner netblock.
4. wikipediaclassaction.org is registered to a person by the name of "Jennifer Monroe". She is listed here http://news.baou.com/static.php?action=contact as an editor for news.baou.com, which is the same company hosting the DNS servers for wikipediaclassaction.org, and the same company bashing wikipedia here: http://news.baou.com/main.php3?action=search&s_news=wikipedia. It lookes like wikipediaclassaction.org is just another outlet for news.baou.com
5. news.baou.com makes heavy use of the "fair use" doctrine. Just look for it on the bottom of any page on the site. Looks like they do a lot of lip-synching.
I sent them an email as well:
Do you guys have anything better to do than sue an amazing online
resource just because something you disagree with was published? Why
don't you go join the RIAA and sue some 12 year olds.
their reply:
Thank you for your email, but I am interested to learn why you thought I
would be interested in your comments.
then mine again (they didn't reply back):
You are interested to learn why you would be interested in my comments?
Have you always been this circuitous or did you have to become a
lawyer to pull that off?
I think you should put a little disclaimer above your email link on
your page, try putting "Don't bother us if you disagree with anything
we stand for, we just might sue you for libel and defamation."
Hey, I have an idea, how about I post up a whole lot of slanderous
things about your guys on a public website, that way you can sue me
too! That we be awesome.
I can see the headlines now "wikipediaclassaction.org is run by a
bunch of litigeous losers who hate freedom of speech!" yeah, that'd be
a great line. I can only hope I can get one of your dickhead lawyers
to try and sue me.
Now, I am a wikipedia fan and often use the site for quick info gathering, but try to take a step back and look at their viewpoint.
1. Freedom of speech: Yes, we have it, but that does not allow you to scream "fire" in a crowded place, or make false statements that hurt the character of another. Parody is ok, but that is different than some of the claims of wiki false entries.
U.S. law does have restrictions on what you can say and how you can say it. However, if what you are saying about someone actually is true, the courts will support you in saying it.
2. Claims about suits should target authors, not wikipedia: Good point. Although that would assume that the authors could be found. Even with the new changes, there is little chance in finding the authors. As wikipedia creates, monitors and hosts the system that does not provide reasonable efforts to identify the author, they may have legal accountability. If you are not a lawyer, as I am not, do not claim that they have no liability here. This may fall into the same area as the anonymous surfing providers that have been found liable for the actions of some of their users in the past.
The courts have upheld that sites with community forums are generally not liable for the comments of posters on their sites as long as certain measures are taken. This may apply to wikipedia but the courts would have to decide that wikipedia falls into this same category of uses and that these “measures” have been taken
3. Take reasonable responses if you disagree to any of the class action lawsuit people: Remember that there is often a difference between what the law says/allows and what you/I think. If you disagree with the actions of another like this, do not call them and harass them. This may only expose you to criminal harassment charges.
If it turns out that the law is different than what you think is reasonable, then step up and get involved in the political process by at least writing your congressman. Then again, if more of us actually paid attention to politics, this world would be a better place at a fraction of the tax cost.
Hmm... I've gotten the same response. But I managed to get what I think were human responses to my emails. I got about 15 replies from them, essentially they want anybody on the internet to be responsible for what someone says. Although somehow they make a distinction between webhosts and isps and wikipedia, which are actually pretty close.
i love that the guys asked you a serious question in his response, and YOUR next response is "these guys are jerks, harass them".
where's your answer to the question?
if i make articles claiming your father is a fat ugly neo-nazi racist, why should he have to register to undo that? why should we have to "probe to see if there's anything bad about me on there"?
if CNN wrote that (your father is a fat smelly neo nazi whatever), you could sue for libel. that isn't the case with wikipedia? just because we aren't all journalists, we are all exempt from the law?
i doubt it.
and don't worry, i won't expect to see the comment added, since you "don't agree" and since you'll just censor my point.
if you don't publish the last comment, it just shows how concerned you are for "free publishing rights for the masses".
This is in response to the previous comments: I will not only publish the comments left here (I usually only kick out spam comments), I will also respond to your comments. I would first like to say that I never said these guys were jerks and I certainly never said to harass them. I did say that we should let them know exactly what the Wikipedia is and how valuuable it is to everyone. And if someone made that claim about my father or anyone else I would make sure that the informaion was coreected. In the case of the Wikipedia that means that I either edit it myself or contact the admins to help the situation.
Now I will kindly ask you to keep my father's weight and political affiliations out of this. ;)
Yours Truly,
FutureMAN
Too many 14 to 18 year old kids getting in on this controversy. They certainly helped change my opinion of Wikipedia negatively.
Grow up people. Spamming and harassing someone for having a point of view different from your own is wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.
Thank you, I just sent them my opinon
TRUE INTENT MONEY?
Is the wikipediaclassaction lawsuit website really intending to file a lawsuit? or are they doing it to make money off publicity (i notice the google ads on the page). Also they seemed ot have ripped the trademark wikipedia logo making it look like a wikipedia page even.
An answer to the father thing. Whoevers father is not a public figure and according to New York Times vs. Sullivan and Hustler vs. Falwell as long as there is no malicious intent and it is a public figure, they can say anything they want. Illegitmate content or pure lies are not illegal. You cant take down a site jsut because you disagree with it. Wikipedia is a great resource but its not 100%, were gonna have to deal with that.
HEY MODERATOR SCRUB my last post and just post this (DUH no reason to glog up your comments screen with all that :-)
--------------------
Here is the e-mail I sent them
http://www.nerys.com/stuff/moron001.html
Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/
Interesting that they've got Google Adsense on the side bar.
Why not join the lawsuit to see what they're saying to the people 'on their side'.
Or.. a lot of people could waste their time wanting to join, until they find out you have no actual interest!!
Here is the link to his article slamming Wikipedia. It appears, from the comments, that even he got his facts incorrect
http://greg.baou.com/blog/wordpress/?p=7#comments
How do we know this low-life didn't plant the article on Wikipedia (or have it planted) so that he'd have someone to sue this week?
Woah, wait a second here guys.
This is blogger and anybody is able to reply in comments. The content of the comments should be strictly monitored and edited to ensure all statments are true.
I think I am going to have to start a class action law suit against blogger now, we must stop this freedom!
*Please not this reply is intended to viewed in a sarcastic manner.
I used to work on a volunteer newspaper, and even though we were essentially an NGO, we still could get sued, and were.
The first amendment does not mean you can say anything you want. That is not free speech. Libel and Slander laws still apply, even if you did not personally write the content, it is still your puplication or web site.
We were sued because of a letter to the editor to our newspaper. Thats right, a letter to the editor.
As unfare as that sounds, that is the law. I do not think that congress is going to rewrite the law just for wikipedia.
I love wikipedia, and I hope they can survive this because they do a great service.
I think Wikipedia should ignore this guy. If he really starts a lawsuit, he will loose it and done. He just wants attention. Let's create a screenshot of his page, remove the links to his site and get his PageRank down. He probably just wants to monetarize the attention.
"I am interested to learn why you thought I would be interested in your comments."
They put this line into every reply.
I thought he was not harsh at least. Not thoughtfull, but not a complete ass either, so that's cool.
He may have a point. Still, it sucks sueing Wikipedia.
A simple Google search for that Greg Lloyd Smith character (according to one of the commenters the person behind the lawsuit) shows umm interesting results, like this for example: http://jdo.org/baou.htm
Hi, I'm a Wikipedia fan although they also have an inaccurate, libellous article about me.
Nathan Braun
I sent this, just trying to make them see the power of numbers and the interent community:
"Hello, i've just read your website.
You do not understand the issues here, so perhaps, it is best for you to sit this one out on the side.
Why must you become involved in the Wikipedia website? If there is offending or inaccurate content, about you, your business or family, you should become a user and edit the content
I am interested to learn why you thought anyone would care about your useless campaign."
I contacted themand asked them to reconsider their opinion. I'm especially concerned being a professor, because Wikipedia normally gives some sources and it's a decent starting point for students. He replied back with:
"I guess you have that opinion because you have not been defamed by one
of the so-called volunteers that post untrue content to the website.
My
desire is to have the content removed, to ensure that it will not
return
to that site and if that means that it has to be bankrupted then so be
it."
Rgearding efforts to harass the Wikipedia class action litigant:
Remember the old saying - Never mud wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.
I'll publically post defamatory comments about him right now.
"This guy is a borderline retard, his family must be ashamed, and his business is not to be trusted."
There's something he can't register to become a user to login and edit.
Class action that, asshat. Long live Wikipedia!
This guy needs to ask. WHAT WOULD JESUS DO! :) Would Jesus sue Wikipedia if they posted the wrong information. In fact, I know personally that Jesus' info on Wikipedia is wrong. If Jesus' information is wrong, he wouldn't sue Wikipedia, he'd go in there with a whip! Whap, slap, badoom!
Actually, I'm not a devout religious person, but my point is that he's trying to stoop lower than the person that defamed him for selfish reasons. Now I'm wondering if I could sue my highschool cause one of my fellow classmates wrote my name on the bathroom wall. "For a good time call..." He has the same concept in his head....
I've posted a handy and polite form letter on my blog. If you wanna let these litigious guys know how you feel please feel free to use it.
http://www.intellagirl.com/mambo
lets give him a virus
No one is suing Wikipedia. This is a traffic trick. Someone set up an adsense-ridden website and used the ``blogosphere'' to generate the traffic through it by threatening to sue the bloggers' holiest cow. He just has to wait until it hits digg and /.; the resulting traffic is converted into ad dollars.
Again.There is no real lawsuit. The guy just set a completely automatic cash cow, sovereign to the point it has cliche mail autoresponders.
YHBTLAF.
I don’t think this guy has ever been to the supermarket! I live in the good old USA and I can't remember the last time I went to buy groceries without seeing these little things called tabloids. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tabloids) Tabloids are right there for everyone to see and they make all kinds of false statements about celebrities and god knows whom else. I bet they could even get away with containing "offending or inaccurate content, about me, my business or family". Why don’t I see celebrities or anyone else filing class action suits against them?
I emailed the guy and he replied,"If I posted details about how you like little boys, would you ignore
it?
When I encouraged your associates to read it, and then it caused you
to lose your job, would you ignore it? I think not." Sounds as if he needs to sue his workplace for firing over heresay and not Wikipedia.
Heh, I remember when the QuakeAID controversy happened. Ironic because the QuakeAID article was really showing Wikipedia at its best (I mean - Wikipedia certainly does have its problems sometimes).
This organization is a real basket case. Even if it isn't a complete scam, they seem to be confused by how anyone could think an organization which asks for money but doesn't have any evidence of doing anything is suspicious.
Dude has Ads by Google on his site.
Altruistic motives my ass.
This is a form letter. I got the same one.
Is it possible that this may actually be Darl McBride and SCO!!!!! :-)
Is the site down for anyone else?
Thanks for the e-mail address; my inquiry is on the way. Expecting a form letter back; next will be a call to their toll-free number.
IMO the lawsuit is simply a money grab; if they wanted correct information, they could have just changed it. LOL.
I tracked these guys down quite a bit. See here: http://blog.outer-court.com/forum/14579.html
Just curious...did he at least Wikipedia to take the information off its site first? If he didn't then it is about the almight dollar...I will send a poliet email later today from my home email address...which will be nice as if it isn't I am sure he will sue me for slander....
I hope this passes as one person said there is so much untruth on the net but you can't go around sueing everyone...but, at the same time the net has so very much to offer...
I think you should do a story on how he's not got a google ads account and is hosting advertisements on his site... for what? To raise money for the litigation? I think not... This is just silliness.
I wonder if they understand copyright infringement.... the Wikipedia logo is copyright WikiMedia and I think they may not want it on the 'lets all sue Wikipedia' page... just a thought...
Yup, here is what they sent me:
Hello,
You do not understand the issues here, so perhaps, it is best for you to sit this one out on the side.
Why must I become involved in the Wikipedia website? If there is offending or inaccurate content, about me, my business or family, why should I be required to become a user and edit the content?
I am interested to learn why you thought I would be interested in your comments.
Regards,
----------------------------
I wrote:
I am writing to express my deep reservations at your suggestion to sue Wikipedia. This sets a dangerous precedent for freespeech in our country and around the world.
I, and many others, are very troubled by your decision to bring suit against Wikipedia – a bastion of free expression.
I strongly urge you to rethink your decision.
Sincerely,
Byron Adams
LOL!
http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20675
"The first line of their disclaimer says it all: "General disclaimer – Use Wikipedia at your own risk". Until Seigenthaler learned of the untrue statements about him, he was not a user."
I think "Until" is a pretty key word here.
I actually called the number and had an argument with him. At one point, when I made a claim about credit card penetration in Europe, he tried to claim that he was in Europe right now. I pointed out that 866 is an american area code and he was like "it's called a telephone". Heh. (I've got a fuller transcript up, if anyone's interested.)
I just wrote this letter to them. I'll be mad if I get the boring response.
I too find that Wikipedia is full of inaccurate information. It often bothers me. When I know more than the people who post the articles, I feel like my knowledge is being undermined by people who know less than me.
But I've found a simple solution: I CHANGE IT.
Wikipedia rules. When I felt that an article about Mormons contained offensive language, I CHANGED IT. It WASN'T hard. In fact, if you feel that it is unfair that you should have to should have to be a registered user ("why should I be required to become a user and edit the content?"), I'll give you my username and password, and you can use them all you want to change whatever you feel like. Okay? That sounds pretty fair.
I don't want the same automated response that you've sent to the owners of these sites:
http://houseofgray.blogspot.com/2005/12/response-from-wikipedia-lawsuit.html
http://newtechinc.blogspot.com/2005/12/my-brief-email-correspondence-with.html
http://www.utopiaoverip.com/?p=117
Please, take the time to send me an answer from an actual human being, who reads my letter and then responds to what I have said. Thank you.
Marcus Shepherd
I've added my own bit at Wikipedia, can be found under Loser....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loser_%28person%29
This is terrible, we see again: The rotten apple rottens the whole fruit basket.
I love wikipedia.
seems like they just made the site to get ad revenue from google ads knowing they'd get a digg or slash dot effect. ?? Maybe this is the next spam...get folks hyped up just to visit the site and collect ad revenue? - just a thought....
This is just some scam artist throwing a hissy fit. There is no class action. A class usually starts with an individual lawsuit that gets expanded after filing. In some cases a law firm will take on the groundwork first to gather clients before launching the class action. But there are NO cases where some idiot starts hollering about a class action without so much as a lawyer attached to it.
Think about it: if there are any grounds for a class action whatsoever, most of the benefits go to the first law firm to file an action. The dumbest thing you could do is throw a public hissy fit threatening a class action - if it had any merit a real lawyer would snatch it out from under you. This loser clearly hasn't bothered to talk to a single attorney, or even do a few minutes of research on how class litigation works. And if he had talked to a lawyer, he'd be laughed out of the office.
It's like I said on my own blog at djmischiff.com - holding Wikipedia liable for user-maintained content is the equivalent of holding New York liable for the content of its graffiti. Especially lately. And Wikipedia is already moving in response to the posting abuse.
I agree with the intelligent consensus that this is the lashing out of a scammer who has been exposed for what he is.
Thanks for posting this, futureMAN, and thanks for emailing the clown.
anyone else think that jack thompson is behind the auto-response emails? these sort of childish retorts have only come from one source in the past.
Okay, so, I got my response from them. Here we go:
Hello,
When I get an original thought, I reply with an original email. Seems fair to me, but so many of the idiots who write to offer their 2 cents are merely copying from each other's homework, so to speak. They share their lame thoughts and then present them as their own.
We intend to change it, or removing it trying. We have given Mr. JIMBO Wales sufficient opportunity to remove offending content from his website, but he has ignored our requests. Suffice it to say, now that we have make our complaint publish, many more people have come forward with similar complaints.
Seems there are many problems with the service:
http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20679
In any event, you propose that we should have to register to edit some content that is libelous when in fact, the publisher of offending materials is responsible and is charge with the task of making amends. You suggest that because Mr. Wales devised a system that encourages anonymous postings, that we must accept that and not pursue the publisher. Sorry, but that isn't the way this will end up.
Regards,
lets sue this dooshbag for sueing wiki...mmk
I sent this guy an email. I kinda got carried away in a rant, but you get the general idea.
As someone who appreciates knowledge, I must let my opinions be heard. You have made it clear that you do not believe you should listen to anyone's thoughts but your own... however ignorant that may be.
A collection of the world knowledge has been the quest of man since the founding of civilization. Algebra, calculus, and literature are some of the legacies that have been passed down through hundreds of generations to us. It is an amazing feat in and of itself. BUT today, we have the technology, the ability, the drive to make that knowledge available to everyone. Wikipedia is an avenue to that greater goal. True, all the information may not be accurate. True, some slander may exist on the page. But, it is the true information, the well-intentioned information that makes all the difference. It is a matter education. It is a matter of knowledge. It is a matter of legacy.
The human race needs a tool like Wikipedia. It is the knife that strikes the flint. The burning fire is the end goal. The end goal must be pushed for and worked for. No one person may accomplish this by themselves. It is impossible for an individual to be that burning fire, but the human race in total needs to be that fire. We all must fuel it and watch over it. The fire is the legacy we can pass to our children and grandchildren. Knowledge is all our world is based on and trying to shut it down is a gross error.
You may not care about the world around you or others, but I do. Plenty of people do. I hope and pray that you do not win this lawsuit for the sake what so many people strive for, knowledge.
_________________
In either case, this man is a fool. A great representation of what is wrong with the world...
Why give them the attention, ad-sense clicks, and validation they're looking for? This is a big scam, leave it alone.
IIRC, it's illegal to threaten to sue and not actually sue. Once you threaten it, you better be all over it with the law-dogs or else they can counter-sue you.
so....either wiki could get it's dogs out and couter sue, this guy drops the whole thing....or, he actually does sue them.
please, don't feed the fire. grow up, act as if you have a brain in your head, and if you still must email or call, please do it polietly and intelligently.
camron
By the way, the proper URL for Wikipedia is wikipedia.org, not .com... they're a noncommercial organization and use the proper top level domain for this. Lots of people seem to get this wrong.
Uh... I agree with the guy doing the lawsuit. You are the one that seems to be hyping his own agenda here. He has a legitimate concern.
Um, no. His suit is baseless and smacks of some sort of small man syndrome.
things like this are why lawyers will always be hated. :)
He is pissed, and now he's like a spoiled child who wants a new toy. Tantrum imminent....5...4....3....
Anonymous said...
Uh... I agree with the guy doing the lawsuit. You are the one that seems to be hyping his own agenda here. He has a legitimate concern.
3:05 PM
HUH?!
Be advised - this Greg Lloyd Smith fellow is very possibly harvesting e-mail addys like crazy with his obvious form letter response. Of intense interest is the parent company out of Greece, BAOU Inc, which turns out to have ties with Saidi Royal family and Hamas. Gee, I wonder why Smith feels so threatened by open source and free speech? Also, take note that "Jennifer Monroe" is the author of the lawsuit website, and her most recent "article" published all over the web contains a ridiculous misspelling. I really seriously doubt "Jennifer" actually exists, and whether she does or not, those folks at OfficialWire certainly behave like English is no mother tongue.
So, if it looks like this lawsuit is going to go through, we should all write something defamatory about ourselves on Wiki, then give the money back to Wiki. The more people who are apart of the lawsuit, the less money each one would get.
If he tries to deny us access to the class action, he is liable himself.
from "http://greg.baou.com/"
Whether you need to put out a fire, or simply start one, our experienced staff will provide the service you need at the price you want.
"Whether you need to put out a fire, or simply start one, our experienced staff will provide the service you need at the price you want."
http://greg.baou.com/
hey, wrote them an email too and got an personal answer:
Von: lawsuit@wikipediaclassaction.org
Betreff: Re: wiki article
Datum: 28. Dezember 2005 14:35:54 GMT+01:00
An:
Antwort an: lawsuit@wikipediaclassaction.org
Do you know Jimmy (JIMBO) Wales personally? If not, then why are you talking about something that you know nothing about?
Jonas wrote:
"Similarly, Wales uses Wikipedia to libel and 'get back' of those he doesn't like..."
this is ridiculous!
don't you guys have better ideas, better things to do than bashing innovative ideas?
i wonder!
g
jonas
You guys do relize that he's just making money with the Google ads and getting all the blogs to go "oh my god, he can't do that!" so he gets written about and gets traffic.
Actually, as much as I hate scammers this is pretty piss funny.
Look how worked up you all are! Better tell your friends, then blog about it... RATINGS! :)
Well, he's an asshole but clever.
I'm sorry but Wikipedia is not an accurate source of information. Usually when you try and make it right someone comes along and changes it. It is a good concept but in order for it to work you would need to have a good population.
The problem with Wikipedia are the strange, 'obsessed' editors who try to take over an article.
I had a problem with someone who refused to listen to reason.
They're evil, maladjusted people.
Post a Comment