QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 3rd June 2011, 9:36am)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 2nd June 2011, 11:46am)
The WMF is fairly clearly immunized against this form of liability by Section 230. Section 230 clearly abrogates any duty for a provider of Internet services to supervise its customers' use of those services; since providers have no duty of supervision there is no way any such supervision could be negligent.
The notion that Wikipedia is a nuisance is an interesting one, but nuisance law is generally thought of as a real property action, and I've never seen anyone apply nuisance law without there being some connection to real property (or the owners or lessees thereof) that is being affected by the nuisance.
Kelly, I've spoken with a lawyer who was a key figure in the breast implants cases, and he thinks that Section 230 could be trumped by Wikipedia's problem of "invasion of privacy" of some of the individuals it earmarks as "notable", then allows libel or the chance for libel on a 24/7 basis. I think that has some merit, but I'm not a lawyer, of course.
We are talking about the edges of the law, and for anyone to presume some outcome in advance would be foolish. Here, depending on section 230 immunity, as if the volunteer community for Wikipedia is a bunch of "customers," is awfully shaky.
A more apt characterization might be that the WMF uses them to accomplish its goal, building an encyclopedia, from which it benefits (by gathering donations), and it could be claimed that it is negligent in supervising its servants.
To flesh this theory out, suppose that Wikipedia profits through increased traffic and thus increased donor support, based on publishing libel. I think that the "publisher" for Wikipedia is not the volunteers, it's the WMF. Is the WMF immunized against the unsupervised misbehavior of those who volunteer, according to a system over which the WMF has control, should it choose to exercise that control? That, to me, sounds like an unresolved legal issue, not a slam-dunk in any direction.
It gets even clearer if it's realized that a system that would far better protect people from libel exists, and was just rejected. Not rejected by the WMF, but by the "body of volunteers." Pending Revisions. The WMF could, in fact, insist, if it had the cojones to confront the alleged involved community.
(the core continually pretends that it is the community, when the vast bulk of contributions are coming from outside the core.)