Valleywag
Jimmy Wales's clandestine editing of a girlfriend's Wikipedia entry has done more than just bring the online encyclopedia into disrepute. It may well put the site's nonprofit parent, the Wikimedia Foundation, in legal jeopardy. Wikipedia has thrived in part thanks to a protection granted by the Communications Decency Act, which spares websites which merely host users' content from liability for what they say. But what if one of the website's officials moves to have that content edited? Then the protection vanishes. That is the legal argument advanced by Wales's ex, Rachel Marsden, in a series of emails with Mike Godwin, Wikimedia's general counsel, that she has posted to Valleywag.
Marsden, who is seeking to have her biography removed from Wikipedia altogether, writes:
It would appear that the approach you describe directly contradicts the spirit of the CDA, which claims that Internet providers are merely providing a blank bulletin board, where people can post whatever they want. That is only true, however, insofar as the owners of the bulletin board do not interfere with what is posted there. It is my understanding, based on extensive legal consultation, that the moment they decide to take action regarding postings, they are liable for everything that is on it.Wales sought to hide his involvement in editing Marsden's page. He admits that he gave a false reason to Wikipedia's volunteer administrators on why he wanted to recuse himself from the discussion, at the same time that he gave them clear marching orders on how he wanted it changed. Marsden believes that Wikipedia's administrators have rewritten her biography to be less favorable to her after Wales broke up with her and withdrew his protection.Jimmy Wales, my ex-boyfriend and Wikimedia Board member, admits publicly to having my article altered. In other words, he is admitting that he is essentially responsible for the content of the bulletin board—he can influence what it says, and the law says that since he can, he should. In other words, the safe harbour—I am not responsible for what people post on my bulletin board—goes right out the window.
But the question isn't so much Marsden's page, or her individual case. If she does not test the law, someone else will. The larger question is whether Wikipedia loses its legal protections if its board members or employees involve themselves in any way in the editing of the site. The answer may well lie in the courts, thanks to Wales's thoughtless actions. If that happens, Wikipedia will not be the better off for it. But why should Wales care? He got his fling.
Comments
in b4 30-40 Rachel Marsden posts
Errors and omissions of a corporation's executive do not transfer liability to the corporation. There would need to be something akin to resolution of board of directors of Wiki[pm]edia for Rachel's theory to have legal standing.
Wasn't Jim Wales recently sidelined in Wiki*edia? That would show as a goodwill on their part to reduce the authority of a misbehaving executive.
I would presume that Wiki*edia has a standard E&O (errors and omissions) insurance policy on their executives and directors. If so, then they won't even have to pay the legal costs of defending themselves against Rachel's accusations.
@Spy from the Land....
OK, so there's the legal out for the executive in particular. But as we both know, what's legal and moral are very often two different things. What about the moral ramifications on the Foundation?
Oh God, I'm going to regret this I know. You've already given a roundabout slam for my "copralalia" - now I'm sure I'll get it for my hebetudinous and soporific query.
God damn... Rachel has become a force to be reckoned with! She will take down a whole Wikipedia soon!
Oh, what some men are ready to do for the love of an attractive woman!
@WilliamMarkFelt: I don't think I made myself clear. The legal out I mentioned is for the Foundation, not the executive.
Rachel demands Congressional-level action that will allow any person to request removal of any information about them that they deem defamatory. I firmly believe that even if there will be a Congressional inquiry, this isn't going to pass. I offered her two choices, which I cut&paste below:
Are you going to settle for a FCAA (Fair Character Assasination Act)? Similar to the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) it will give you an opportunity to insert x% words of your own choice to into the publication that you deem to harm your reputation. The dispute process will be similar to the one currently in place with credit reporting agencies.
Or you won't rest until the whole Wiki[pm]edia moves to U.K. where the libel laws are different?
Lets leave moral/immoral matters when Owen calls for deserts. We just went from the soup to the main entre.
@Spy from the Land of Rainpeople: As a Board member, Jimmy Wales, and other Wikimedia Foundation Board members are legally liable.
@Figaro: Any and all issues involving myself and Wikipedia long predate, and are to an extent quite separate from, my relationship with Jimmy. The sole exception being that his editing of my so-called Wikipedia biography while we were in a relationship triggered a nullification of any protection under s230.
@Spy from the Land of Rainpeople: A Congressional probe, given recent events involving Wikipedia, is not out of order whatsoever. Having made a career working in politics (in Washington, DC and elsewhere), I'm very familiar with such processes.
What will I "settle for"? Nothing short of my name being removed from this website - and the option of others to do the same. Wikipedia is the only website I've ever encountered that finds such a request for non-inclusion due to privacy and ongoing defamation concerns unreasonable.
Jimmy has also direct-edited the following entries:
* My good friend Ann Coulter's
* Rita Cosby (who spoke with Jimmy repeatedly over the phone about getting her entry fixed, around the beginning of February and end of January 2008)
* Bianca Jagger (who is good friends with Jimmy's ex-girlfriend before me, Louise MacBain).
And many more. But that's a start. So obviously, there is a pattern to his direct involvement in editing and negation of s230 protection.
Wow. Remind me to not date unstable Canadians. Or Jimmy Wales.
@godospoons: Funny - I usually only get called "unstable" when I'm winning an argument. Either that or "bigot", "racist" or some variation thereof. As such, I consider it a badge of honour. Kind of like when Keith Olbermann named me Worst Person In The World, or whatever. I actually put that on nametags at conferences. But "unstable" is a bit shorter, so I may start using that one.
Hmm u don't look like the Worst Person In The World to me.
[img187.imageshack.us]
@Rachel Oh no. Please don't misunderstand.
I'm not basing it on your argument.
@godospoons: Then it would go without saying that you're practicing what one would technically call "talking out of one's ass".
Kindly try to stick to the topic, if you are so able. I realize you find me fascinating. Apparently many people do. But there's an actual issue to be debated here. Thanks, dear.
Hey Rachel! When you go out on dates, do you ever tell the guy what you did to the last guy who effed you over? Might be a good way to keep them honest. And terrified.
@FlakJack: Yes, I do! I try so hard to keep the creeps away, and it still doesn't work. Jimmy the polygamist here is a case in point.
@Rachel Stick to the topic? Ok!
How does it feel to go through life constantly having to have your mistakes expunged in one way or another? Have you ever considered that this long standing run of perceived bad luck--in your career, boyfriends, etc.--is your fault and not that of liberals, Democrats or me?
I'm waiting for the Valleywag article on how you went around as a child cutting bad photos of you out of yearbooks. It would be an excellent metaphor for your adult life.
I'll leave you in piece to spend the rest of the evening commenting on the article you placed and likely waited up all night to see. Meanwhile, I have a better argument for deleting your profile... Insignificance. Perhaps you should suggest it to your lawyers.
@Rachel Marsden: But the point here is not to win an argument in this gossipy laundromat. Your point should be to win the case in the court of law.
Jim has much better legal counsel than you do. According to Owen Jim had already admitted to deception of fellow directors and officers. This neatly triggers E&O insurance policy provisions. You won't even be able to face Jim in court. You'll just face some junior insurance company flunkey who will read a prepared statement.
Tell us how you are going to get from the above to the "s230 nullification". Tell us how you are going to establish that this "direct-editing for sexual favors" was mentioned in any resolution of the board of directors of Wikimedia.
I really want to hear what legal theory is your counsel going to advance to stretch the liability from Jim Wales as a person to Wikipedia Foundation as a Corporation. Also, are you planning on litigating in California or in Florida?
@Spy from the Land of Rainpeople: Interesting and relevent points. We'll have to see what happens, won't we.
@godospoons: Life's great. Thanks for asking, dear. Actually, I'm headed to Cannes later this week for the Film Festival, parties, and a week's worth of yachting and suntanning on the French Riviera. How about you?
@Spy from the Land of Rainpeople: Incidentally, I believe the operative word you're looking for in your questioning is "negligence".
@Spy from the Land of Rainpeople: No, he never admitted deception to execs or directors. More accurately, he admitted (in an instant message to me, which was subsequently posted on Valleywag) having lied to the OTRS members on Wikipedia as to the nature of my relationship with him and his reason for making the edits.
He is a Board member. He is liable. And negligence on the part of the Board is a factor, as well.
@godospoons: Oh, I've already tried arguing my insignificance as a basis for my exclusion from Wikipedia. Wikipedia refuses to accept that, as well. Apparently I'm just too important. *sigh*
@Diet Coulter
I don't feel a need to flaunt my lifestyle to impress one of Jimmy Wales' discarded conquests.
@Spy from the Land of Rainpeople: "Jim has much better legal counsel than you do."
I would argue that he doesn't. Given my attorney's track record, I'd say he would be pretty tough to beat.
"I have a lot of money, I'm very happy, I'm very successful, I have a lot of sex. I hang out with the jet set, here are some of their names."
Is there a more trite, puerile, or transparent expression of deep insecurity? It's the lingua franca of the dime-a-dozen keyboard-warrior set. Even if it's all true (except the 'happy' bit, which clearly isn't.
Still, there *do* seem to be a lot of happy, well-adjusted, successful people who post 20-40 times every single day, all day, on Valleywag. So maybe I'm wrong.
@johnnypotatoes: Ok. If you say so. Hey, what do I know? :)
Rachel Marsden understands that the internet is serious business. The rest of you just don't get it.
@Rachel Marsden: Thanks for pointing to me that I had tripped over the English syntax rules. What I meant to say is that Jim has informally admitted in this laundromat to deceiving fellow directors and officers. He will make a formal admission when he gets formally accused in the court of law. For now we are in the "blowing hot air" stage, so the informality is OK.
Switching back to the subject matter: "negligence" is typically litigated in the US with the counsel working on the contingency basis. I'm going to get convinced of the strength of your arguments when you tell us (broadly, details not required) which reputable law firm took your case on the "contingency agreement" basis.
I'm actually in general agreement with your goals. Except that I wouldn't push for "removal". My ideal solution would be an FCAA
(Fair Character Assasination Act; would somebody please come up with a better name? thanks!) as I'd tried to outline above. If that doesn't work then I'm gonna move to the Old Blighty.
@Spy from the Land of Rainpeople: Point(s) taken - and thoughtful comments.
@kyleshank: LMAO!
@Rachel Marsden: I wouldn't pay too much attention to the "track record". When I got sued by a 4-star-name legal partnership my attorney was straight out of school and didn't have to shave every day. But after he filled his first motion I got what I needed: "case dismissed, with prejudice." He built his track record on my case, not on my money.
I have feeling that you may be getting taken for a ride (financially) by some shark that sees through your emotions.
Try to use your intelligence and don't ever send legal correspondence while on the runner's high on a Lifecycle.
@Spy from the Land of Rainpeople: Rest assured that I'm not being "taken for a ride", nor am I emotional when it comes to business. Thanks for your comments.
im scrolling down and im thinking wow, i bet there at least 5 comments from rachel on this post.
i was wrong, more like 10
Rachel Marsden posts alot - whenever there's a Jimbo blog article
@seanpercival: Do you guys work in airport security catching terrorists (I mean, when you're not frisking white grandmothers)? With those stellar observational skillz I would feel really safe. If you're not so employed, could I perhaps encourage you in that direction? :)
no im too busy working for your next target
@seanpercival: LOL! Nah Calacanis is great. A no-BS kinda guy.
Also, Sean, Mahalo is nothing like Wikipedia. I'd support Mahalo any day. You guys do a great job. Precisely, I think, because folks like yourself are sticklers about quality. It's a good operation you guys have going over there.
thank you!
so as long as you dont show up and boil one of the pet bull dogs we are totally cool.
why is jimbo so quite in public? we never hear from him. jason of course we hear from alot ;)
I suppose it can't hurt to try, but the US legal system is probably the least likely place to find relief from a Wikipedia attack biography - it's the US courts who have been misinterpreting the intent of Section 230 all along. Those protections under the CDA were never meant to apply to online publishers like Wikipedia, only ISP's, and maybe portal operators, but most US judges don't seem to agree.
The helpful (though sad) folks at wikipediareview.com have mostly concluded that the best way to get the Wikimedia Foundation to impose an opt-out policy on WP for living-person biographies is to lobby Congress, via the media or direct action, to demand that they clarify Section 230 so that online publishers like Wikipedia are explicitly non-covered. Unfortunately, there will almost certainly be some collateral damage throughout the interwebs if this occurs.
There are a few people in the Wikipedia "community" who support the idea of a "dead-tree" opt-out policy (i.e., anyone who isn't already the subject of a formally published biography can opt out), and we'd like to think their numbers are growing. But obviously they're still outnumbered by the majority of Wikipedia users who are (and always have been) revenge-obsessed to the exclusion of nearly all else. Even the most optimistic projections suggest that voluntary adoption by the community is at least a year or two away, and probably longer. By then, it will probably be... too late!
@seanpercival: Oh I love animals. I'd be more likely to try running out the back door with Taurus and Fondue. :p
Some people are quiet I suppose because either they don't have much of interest to say, or perhaps aren't ballsy enough to put their neck out and/or ruffle some feathers. Instead, when they do speak, they resort to weasel words.
@Rachel Marsden: Rachel, I did not even know/care who you were until reading this thread (there is insignificance!), but jeez what a sorry trainwreck of a whore you are. You got what was coming to you, no sympathy from me. Go whine on Jerry Springer or some other stupid reality show.
This is not in defense of JimbHo, just goes to show how dumb he was to get involved with you in the first place. Sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas.
There I said it! Now go watch a video about yourself [www.southparkstudios.com]
@seanpercival: And then there are the sleazebags who are quiet because they prefer to do things underhandedly and behind people's backs (or to breakup with their girlfriend via Wikipedia), rather than confront the issue face-to-face like any real man with any sort of honour or integrity would do.
@Somey: Very interesting. Thank you.
@scalawag: Excellent! If you send me your information via [www.rachelmarsden.com] , I'll make sure you get added to the fan club and get your membership card and free t-shirt in the mail.