Law-Forums.org

[nemausus36]

Where does that guy get off saying Wikipedia is the place to go for "phony, inaccurate information"? Someone needs to drag his behind into court to answer for his horrible lies.

[gerard]

Neither Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation could bring forth such a lawsuit, because libel is "an untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community," and Wikipedia is not a person. However, if Wikipedia was a corporation, it could be argued that since the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have a right to freedom of speech as persons, they also merit protection from libel as persons.

As to whether there is any merit to such a suit, or for the argument to bring forth such a suit in the first place, that would be a question for a judge or a jury, and you didn't ask anyway.

I'm tempted to think that you're one of the Ten Thousand Argonauts, but at the end of the day, that doesn't matter: a question is a question, regardless of who asks it. That's a concept that seems to be beyond the grasp of most Wikipedians, who seem to operate under the curious notion that the validity of something depends exclusively on who said it.

[ealahweemah72]

Neither Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation could bring forth such a lawsuit, because libel is "an untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community," and Wikipedia is not a person. However, if Wikipedia was a corporation, it could be argued that since the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have a right to freedom of speech as persons, they also merit protection from libel as persons.

As to whether there is any merit to such a suit, or for the argument to bring forth such a suit in the first place, that would be a question for a judge or a jury, and you didn't ask anyway.

I'm tempted to think that you're one of the Ten Thousand Argonauts, but at the end of the day, that doesn't matter: a question is a question, regardless of who asks it. That's a concept that seems to be beyond the grasp of most Wikipedians, who seem to operate under the curious notion that the validity of something depends exclusively on who said it.

That's true, actually.

[shen86]

that is not a lie, i changed wikipedia myself.

[ji]

wikipedia gets changes by random people alot. so people can write stuff tht isnt true. most schools dont even let their students go to wikipedia because the information might not be accurate.

[stein74]

He was just reading what his joke writer gave him to say. I doubt he has ever used a computer in his life. He has that done for him. You can't sue someone for making a bad joke. Especially when he IS a bad joke.

[teyo]

He was just reading what his joke writer gave him to say. I doubt he has ever used a computer in his life. He has that done for him. You can't sue someone for making a bad joke. Especially when he IS a bad joke.

For the sake of context, here's what Jay Leno said:

"Wikipedia was offline after an over-heating problem at one of its data centers. It was pretty bad: for a while there, people had nowhere to go for phony, inaccurate information."

But the question isn't whether this is an actionable claim of libel that any judge would take seriously, but who would sue (after all, there's Lindsay the milkaholic).

I would have to say that is Jimbo Wales, but I seriously doubt he felt personally offended by that joke.

[camdin90]

Jay Leno came to my college in the late 1980's, and let me tell you, when he didn't have to adhere to the network censors, he was HILARIOUS.

Oh, and what he says about Wikipedia is only half true. It's not only "phony, inaccurate information", it's also "ludicrous, deceitful information".

[teyo]

Leno was just trying to make a funny. I can't blame him, I mean he threw a hissy fit to get Conan O'Brien sent packing and he's trying to justify NBC having to go through all that hassle and expense.

Probably the founder of Wikipedia would have the right (if any) to sue him. Why bother though, when you can make Jay Leno's Wikipedia page phony and inaccurate and downright libelous to get back at him?

[jaren12]

Leno was just trying to make a funny. I can't blame him, I mean he threw a hissy fit to get Conan O'Brien sent packing and he's trying to justify NBC having to go through all that hassle and expense.

Probably the founder of Wikipedia would have the right (if any) to sue him. Why bother though, when you can make Jay Leno's Wikipedia page phony and inaccurate and downright libelous to get back at him?

All Americans ever think of is what you can sue someone else for!