1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Zoeller suing over wikipedia entry

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by novelist_wannabe, Feb 22, 2007.

  1. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    Fuzzy says defamatory information was put on the info site ...


    Wasn't this really just a matter of time?

    edit to correct thread title
  2. ondeadline

    ondeadline Active Member

    Re: Zoeller suing wikipedia

    This is a misleading thread title. He's not suing Wikipedia because he can't. He's suing a law firm because the part of the article in question allegedly was put in from a computer at that law firm.
  3. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    Re: Zoeller suing wikipedia

    It's an "education consulting" firm, whatever that is.

    As I mentioned on an unconnected but sort of related thread on the J-only board, good luck trying to establish exactly who used the computer in question. Maybe they'll be able to do it, maybe they won't.
  4. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    Re: Zoeller suing wikipedia

    Does it really matter who was using the computer? If he wins, I would think the firm would be liable.
  5. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    Probably, yes, but the legal finding won't answer the burning question, "who exactly did this?"
  6. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Be interesting if it made it to court. Wouldn't your best defense then be to try to prove it was true?

    Not sure I'd want to go to court to prove I'm not a pill-popping, drunk wife-beater.
  7. Big Buckin' agate_monkey

    Big Buckin' agate_monkey Active Member

    Oh Fuzzy, go find some fried chicken and collard greens.
  8. Editude

    Editude Active Member

    We were double checking some reference the other day, and one less-experienced editor wanted to change it because it was different on Wikipedia. Uh, not quite. It's an interesting site, and its material can be second of third corroboration, but it is not a real source.
  9. 85bears

    85bears Member

    A lot of it is sourced now. At least it's supposed to be. So that's helping.

    Beyond stuff like this, it's a terrific idea and has been one of the best things to come out of Al Gore's invention.

    Time had a good story last week about how it will be interesting to see how long this spirit of volunteerism - working for free, essentially - is able to sustain Internet content until the novelty wears off. Actually, that's a question that's very vital to our industry.
  10. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    I don't think that the firm would likely be liable, unless the powers that be knew that something false would be published.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page