Omaha World-Herald link: July 22, 2006, story
Journalism.org link: Seigenthaler and Wikipedia: Lessons and Questions
By Veronica Stickney
World-Herald Staff Writer
With a quiet click of the mouse, the posting was done.
Beamed to the Internet instantly were these lines about Skutt Catholic High School: "It's (sic) tuition is ridiculously high, too. Not to mention you get an awful education there. They put more emphasis on sports than they do education. No wonder almost all kids there are complete idiots."
The eyebrow-raising words appeared on www.wikipedia.org in June, and at least three other questionable edits have been made to Skutt's page in the online encyclopedia since February.
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Since it began in 2001, it has grown to about 2.5 billion visits a month and 2.5 million entries in 10 languages.
Skutt officials have filed a lawsuit, but it's uncertain how far they will get, as issues such as privacy, free speech and libel can conflict in cyberspace.
"The law is a mixed bag right now," said John Seigenthaler, a retired journalist and founder of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. "I can understand how anybody feels pain, but it's still a very difficult row to hoe."
Seigenthaler, a former adviser to Robert F. Kennedy, struggled for months to get false statements about him removed from Wikipedia.
Because anyone can edit Wikipedia - thousands of changes are made every hour - contributors must police themselves and others. If readers stumble across information they think should be changed, they can simply click "edit this page."
Since Skutt officials don't know who posted the statements, they are suing John and Jane Doe in Douglas County District Court. It is a tactical move to learn the identities of users of two Internet Protocol addresses linked with the postings.
The IP addresses belong to Cox Communications, which intends to cooperate with a subpoena it was served in the case, spokeswoman Kelly Sare said. She noted that a court order is the only time the company will divulge customer information, in accordance with federal privacy laws.
In the lawsuit, Skutt says it has suffered general damages in an amount to be determined at trial and says the poster(s) should have known the statements were false.
"These particular edits were really harmful and mean-spirited," said Patrick Flood, an attorney for Skutt.
Other posts, which can still be accessed at Wikipedia, include sharp criticism of Skutt's president and principal, Patrick Slattery, obscene language and a mention of drug use.
On May 2, the text was changed to say: "As many have found, kids have gone unpunished for such crimes as verbal assault, physical abuse and alcohol and substance abuse."
Flood said it's too early to tell if the case will go to trial. Once officials learn the identities of the poster(s), they will determine motives and proceed accordingly, he said.
Federal law protects online service providers from being sued for libel. Under the Communications Decency Act of 1996, as long as providers don't alter the content, they are not legally responsible.
"They are just the vehicle" for other people's information, said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "Basically, the more control you have (over the information), the more risk you have."
The act was designed to protect America Online and other providers, said John Bender, a media law expert and journalism professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. But it has been interpreted to include sites such as Wikipedia that do not provide content but host it.
"It seems to me it's an accident waiting to happen," Bender said of Wikipedia.
But John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, said the Internet serves users just fine.
In fact, any change to the law, he said, would violate one of the Internet's key innovations - the ability of anyone to contribute at any time.
It's that collaboration that makes Internet research valuable, he said. He supports the idea that the wisdom of crowds is greater than the wisdom of one or of an elite few.
"Lots of people can tell a story from lots of different perspectives," he said. "The truth is more complicated than one person might tell you in one book."
And, as people increasingly turn to the Internet for research, they are learning to be more skeptical, Palfrey said. They are realizing that it's imperative to check more than one source.
Wikipedia gives the same advice on its Web site, noting that "it is a valuable resource and provides a good reference point" but that "unfamiliar information should be checked before relying upon it."
Inappropriate comments sometimes are removed altogether, said Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. In an e-mail interview, he said items are deleted promptly after officials learn of a complaint.
He also said that improper postings are rare and that it's strange Skutt officials haven't contacted him.
Seigenthaler, who also helped found USA Today, was upset about a statement on Wikipedia that said he had been linked to the deaths of Kennedy and his brother, former President John F. Kennedy.
He eventually identified the person responsible for the false posting, without filing a lawsuit. But now improper postings about him are frequent.
On July 6, someone replaced his picture with Adolf Hitler's. A January posting said he killed former President William McKinley, who died in 1901.
Though the statements have been edited out, they are still accessible by viewing the page's history. It is Wikipedia's way of recording changes to articles. It argues that such a record gives credibility to articles, as users can see how many people have contributed to them.
"This is Wikipedians getting even," Seigenthaler said. "They think this is their Web site and anyone who criticizes them is attacking them."
No comments:
Post a Comment