This suit may well be a sideshow - but having the popular press chisel away at wikipedia's reputation with potted recaps of
Things Wikipedia Got Wrong is a distinct sea-change. See also
this spotted on Kelly Martin's
blog.
It may not be possible to terminate wikipedia, but it sure can be discredited.
QUOTE
“We provide a platform through Wikipedia for smart citizens to give their knowledge back to a larger culture,†said the Wikimedia Foundation’s legal representative, Mike Godwin. “Our ability to offer citizens that platform is what’s at stake in this case.â€
Several other media organisations have rallied behind the website, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which campaigns to safeguard digital rights.
“Without strong liability protection, it would be difficult for Wikipedia to continue to provide a platform for user-created encyclopaedia content,†it said.
For "difficult", read "expensive". WP is not compelled to use a model that enables anyone to publish any inaccurate or defamatory content at will - they choose to do it because of the benefit of a free workforce. They could, for instance, develop content in a protected, non-viewable space and screen it before its released. But that would be wikipedia admitting its a publisher, and taking on some of the costly quality control real publishers are obliged to perform.