News Malicious Editor of Wikipedia Comes Clean

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/12/12/Wikipedia_Libel_Editor/

 

He's demonstrated a marked lack of intelligence, both in not recognising the obvious seriousness of the other entries and in the lousy excuse he came up with.

However, there are no grounds to say Rush Deliveries sacked him for libelling whoever; perhaps they sacked him for playing on the internet when they were paying him to do some work. Harsh but fair.

 

Most companies (at least here in the U.S.) have some kind of limited personal use policy when it comes to the internet. Assuming that Rush Deliveries has such a policy, and assuming he was using the internet at an appropriate time (during downtime, lunch hour, coffee break, etc), he may have a thicker leg to stand on. If that is true, and that's a big "if", then I don't think he should have lost his job. He came clean and apologized. I think the public embarrassment would be enough.

But then, we all know what assuming does...

-monkey

 

should he be sued for slander? absolutely! should he lose his job? only if he posted it while on the clock. there is no way rush deliveries will have a legal leg to stand on if he posted this from home or while on his break or lunch break. u can't fire an employee for being an a$$hole off the clock, unless u have some strange contract that says they are supposed to be intelligent and nice all the time. he may be able to sue the hell out of them, if they fired him just cause of his post on wiki

 

i wouldnt do a thing to the guy. there is no contract on wiki that ive noticed, and if there is its not all that eye catching. furthermore ive put up an obviously false article before and caught no flak, it was just fixed minutes later. it doesnt seem all that serious to be honest, looks like a playground inviting you to mess with it. if anyones to blame its wiki (moderators?) for not catching it right away. this was a big nothing (esp since it was a joke!) and he caught all kinds of crap (LOST HIS JOB!?) because it gained so much publicity.

 

i cant believe this whole thing could get some much air time. i dont see the big deal. whoop-de-frickin-do some guy wrote something untrue....... that nevers happens..... EVER!

 

As far as the Wiki post ohh well. Him lossing his job over it. If he did it with company equipment sure. If not though he has a sure win case of wrongful termination even if he was on the clock as long as company equipment wasn't used they really can't do anything legally. Although the company will probably say his performance was subpar or something else as the reason they fired him and it is just hapstance that he came forward at the same time. If he didn't use company equipment I hope he sues them for everything he can get plus his job back all missed pay then quits.
Just my two cents

 

Forgive me for my lack of knowledge, but doesn't the whole thing fall under free speech (At least as far as a lawsuit is concerned)?

 

Free speech does not include libel (or slander if it was spoken).

 

That's strange. I read elsewhere that Chase himself resigned from his job because he didn't want to cause trouble for his employer.

 

Wikipedia is no "Rose Garden"

Dear Editors:

Wikipedia has been touted as "fairly accurate" in the hard sciences--perhaps the most easily verifiable information of all.

But when it comes to anything else--biography, history, philosophy, the social sciences--Wikipedia is fairly INaccurate. And when it's inaccurate, as John Seigenthaler learned to his horror, people can get it in the neck.

I am one of these.

Take myth number one: --If there is an error, will it be found and fixed in Wikipedia? Not on your life--not if it is a deliberate falsehood that an “editing ‘gang’” is imposing on an article (see below). And not if a person with a “bee in his or her bonnet,” so to speak—a person with a lot of time and an axe to grind—keeps on restoring any lie they please.

Then look at this fact: If there is a person you want to get revenge on, just log into Wikipedia and say whatever you wish to say on a "Talk" or Discussion Page. Just pick the smear you think will hurt most and write it in. It will show up in Google searches, your enemy can complain as much as he or she desires, and nothing will be done by Wikipedia--if he or she is not as famous as John Seigenthaler, Sr.

If there is an article in which you might be mentioned maliciously, the same holds true. Perhaps the Wikipedia administration has become more cautious now. I hope so.

I admire John Seigenthaler, Sr., for his intelligent response to this lack of accountability in Wikipedia.

The New York Daily News (December 13, 2005) wrote: “An entry on Russian history might come from a Nobel Prize-winning professor, or it might come from an escapee from a lunatic asylum.” Or, from someone posing as an authority, who is doing a hatchet job.

There are editors in Wikipedia that relish this lack of control and form little "gangs" to impose their smears and misrepresentations on articles by outnumbering other editors--including those with expert training and legitimate points of view.

I have been "slashed and burned" by such a gang, and I know whereof I speak. Wikipedia has let them go ahead with their dirty business, their foul language, their false and hurtful assaults on my profession and personal reputation. Real libel--actual malice in legal terms--has been passed off as "editing" by the Wikipedia administrators who are supposed to "ride shotgun" to keep the encyclopedia safe from vandals as they are called.

Wikipedia itself has an article "What's Wrong with Wikipedia?" that says: "Editors have learned that formation into 'gangs' is the most effective way of imposing their view on opposite-minded contributors."

I am a great advocate of open source. Open source is needed to spread technology and prevent software monopolies. But "open source knowledge" has not come of age. If ten people without medical knowledge try to do bypass surgery on a patient, or even 500 try it, I pity the patient. If 500 people ignorant of French Literature write a Wikipedia article on it, I pity the article. Or if a "gang" of 5 people motivated by contempt and ill-will "rewrite" an honest article, the result can be a libelous horror. I have seen such a piece of work in process and am trying to fight it right now. If this is done to an infrequently-visited article--says "What's Wrong with Wikipedia"--the misinformation will remain. Or if someone tries to restore its integrity, the "gang" will continually reset the article to their own version.

So, as teachers. librarians, and journalists are learning across the country: If you want accurate information don't trust Wikipedia.

Many of us have been seriously libeled. But if you SAY you are being libeled, Wikipedia admins regard you as "threating legal action" and will ban you.

But now, the cavalry, led by John Seigenthaler, Sr., is charging to the rescue.

 

by creating such a large publicity over this, surely you are only serving to make the problem worse? If people turned their back on wikipedia then it would simply be the diaries of madmen, you are as much of the problem as they are.

If you have problems with the system find another one, dont take away my "open knowledge" just because YOU think we aren't ready for it.