<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />Business Daily - [b]Wikipedia[/b]
BBC News
How Wikipedia spots vandalism on its pages by looking for dirty words inserted by teenagers. Plus, what bees can teach us about management skills and ...

and more »

View the article

Sue Gardner on the hot seat, and ...you guessed it... she begins part of her talk with "So...".

At 5:50, Sue talks about "poop", but strangely no mention of the coprophilia article!

At 7:20, Sue invents "Section 320" (sic) of the Communications Decency Act!

At 7:55, Sue says that no editor of Wikipedia has ever ("not to date") been sued for libel! I wonder what Fuzzy Zoeller's lawyers were doing with Silny Associates? I suppose if the case has to be dropped because the culprit can't be identified, that means no suit ever took place?

Which leads to an interesting question -- has anyone ever successfully sued an editor of Wikipedia for libel?

There was an editor some years back who was banned when it was discovered that he was violating a restraining order by editing articles about a past legal foe who had already won a defamation judgment. Technically enforcing a restraining order arising from a defamation ruling is not "being sued for libel" but it's pretty damn close.

The editor in question was banned by WMF office edict after the WMF was served with a copy of the restraining order, once WMF legal was satisfied that the order was indeed valid and enforceable against the editor in question. Usually the hard part in these cases is tying the editor's account to a person: even if you get IP records (which isn't at all hard, the WMF historically rolls over quite easily on such requests) tying the IP to a person with enough certainty to meet the evidentiary requirements for a civil proceeding can be much harder. The major ISPs are far less willing than the WMF to roll over.

I've also personally conducted several "libel purges" after complaints were made to the WMF, and I'm sure there have been others that I'm not privy to.