Wikipedia Sued For Libel

By Mike Sachoff - Mon, 05/05/2008 - 14:45

Case likely to be thrown out

A literary agent is suing the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia contributors for negative comments, but Wikimedia says it's not liable for user-generated content.

Barbara Bauer filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court alleging that the Wikimedia Foundation is liable for postings that called her one of the "Dumbest of the twenty worst" agents, who has "no documented sales at all."

Wikimedia filed for a motion to dismiss the case, citing the Communications Decency Act, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and state free speech laws as protecting it from such lawsuits. The federal communications law says that owners and operators of Web sites cannot be held liable for user comments.

Courts have ruled in favor of Web sites in a number of similar cases where they upheld the Communications Decency Act. The courts have ruled that people with complaints of defamation on Web sites should focus on users who make comments and not the Web sites that host the comments.

Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University, told MediaPost," There is no doubt that Wikimedia qualifies for (immunity) for any claims based on user submissions or edits to Wikipedia, and I would expect any associated lawsuit against Wikimedia alleging libel to be tossed quickly."

News Tags: Technology, Social Media, Legal, wikipedia

About the author:
Mike is a staff writer for WebProNews.

12 Comments

By Libel_Suit_In_The_Wings (WPN reader) - Mon, 06/01/2009 - 15:37

I was once a victim of libel

I was once a victim of libel on there, and what the clowns behind the libel (one fool thought of changing the user name but I tracked it and even went as far as trying to delete parts of the libel sorry I have screen captures of the entire scenario, this is how damn stupid they are,) not one of these childlike perps in my case are aware, but soon they will be.

I would like to ask them what they would think if I told them that I have a team of lawyers and investigators involved and just waiting to pounce. I already have the information for each of them (as these cowards/pretend editors always hide under screen names - shows how credible they are,) and when the time is right, I AM GOING TO SUE THEM BLIND.

There may be protection still for the site but NO protection is around for those individuals behind the actual posting of the libel.

By Dr. Levy (WPN reader) - Mon, 05/04/2009 - 07:47

Wiki fascists

Not only is Wikipedia unreliable but its Administrators arbitrarily ban and suspend anyone who disagrees with them. as being disruptive and don't even mention that an article contains libel, they will then ban you for making legal threats.

By Internet Marketing Indonesia (WPN reader) - Fri, 11/07/2008 - 23:50

thanks for your article.

thanks for your article. Very help me. I will more like visit to webpronews site. :) Fantastic

By lowongan kerja 2009 (WPN reader) - Sun, 11/02/2008 - 07:02

thanks for its article..

thanks for its article.. very helpful.. :)

By Josh Taylor (WPN reader) - Thu, 07/24/2008 - 21:04

Wikipedia gets what they deserved

I'm glad Wikipedia's getting sued. I hope the government shuts down their site. Wikipedia is a communist fascist and they ban freedom of speech on the site. I hope they throw Jimmy Wales in prison.

I bet they stole the name from another company.

By eril scott (WPN reader) - Wed, 05/28/2008 - 09:47

Wikipedia banned by universities

In the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. universities have banned the use of Wikipedia as a research souce since it is unreliable. Any nut case can edit and falsify content.. It is a noticeboard for gossip, hearsay and libel.

eril scott (London)

By Guest (WPN reader) - Thu, 07/03/2008 - 08:28

And that should be the case

And that should be the case around the world, many university professors in the States make it clear they will not accept Wikipedia for a souce, which as you clearly point out it isn't. You nailed it Eric when you wrote "Any nut case can edit and falsify content.. It is a noticeboard for gossip, hearsay and libel." As I've posted before, any credible scholar wouldn't go near Wikipedia.

By Find articles (WPN reader) - Tue, 05/13/2008 - 17:03

wow

Thats pretty funny.

By Guest (WPN reader) - Tue, 05/06/2008 - 19:57

GOOD! SUE them dumbasses!

GOOD! SUE them dumbasses! Their moderators are such STUPID morons they can't tie their shoes withought saying, "DDDUUUUHHHHH HOW I DO THAT?" These morons are SOOOOOOOO stupid, they won't let an article be made about a company, saying the company's corporate information is not a valid source, while at the same time saying a company's corporate information is a valid source! I know, see how STUPID Wikipedia morons are?

By Phil (WPN reader) - Tue, 05/06/2008 - 09:43