Wikipedia Lawsuit

By Deane Barker on December 12, 2005

Wikipedia Class Action :: Lawsuit []: This was bound to happen at some point, I suppose. Very interesting to see how this is going to play out. How long before the “Wikipedia Defense Fund” pops up? is currently gathering complaints from the entire Internet community, including individuals, corporations, partnerships, etc., who believe that they have been defamed and or who have been or are the subject of anonymous and malicious postings to the popular online encyclopedia WikiPedia.

This is not an unhealthy thing. The fact is, this was bound to happen at some point. So let’s face up to it, resolve it, and figure out where everyone stands.

Curious about the presense of Adsense, however. That seems a little out of place.

Via Metafilter.

What Links Here


  1. Remember when I said I liked you guys? Here’s some stuff to help you break some news.

    The “Wikipedia Class Action Lawsuit” is, in point of the fact, the latest stunt by a Greek-based set of businesspeople with pretty questionable tactics. They have been in the middle of a lot of controversy both with Wikipedia and with a couple other groups.

    I don’t have the time to lay down the full story, but here you go.

    This “story” is being reported by Baou. Baou are a front/news release arm for a group that has tried to capitalize on, for recent example, the Tsunami tragedy some time ago. The website is there:

    Here’s why they want to shut down Wikipedia:

    The co-founder of Quake-Aid, Greg Lloyd Smith, has been in quite a bit of trouble in the past, because of contentions of fraud and other broken laws:

    Here it is, in short form:

    • There is a group involved in questionable business practices.
    • This group has an arm that releases “press releases” and “newswire” info
    • This group has had some run-ins with Wikipedia.
    • This group is therefore attacking Wikipedia to stop them from reporting it.

    A small amount of further research will show you what’s going on. Go out there and win an award.

  2. Good catch with the adsense.

    Note also that there is no listing for the name of the law firm or individual lawyer associated with the solicitation / advertisement, a complete ethical violation.

  3. I don’t know about the law suit, but I am positive that it will happen again and again. Wikipedia is a clear case of the inmates talking over the asylum! It is run by organized volunteer super-nerds as though they were feudal lords! Just go on the site and see the nasty goings on for yourself. And they are at it twenty-four hours a day with a passion!

    Whoever prevails in any disputes about what is indeed “fact” gets to create or rewrite history as though it were true regardless of it is or not. Whoever can gather the most consensus wins. This is effectively accomplished by using a number of fictitious “user names” called “sockpuppets,” or by belonging to or organizing complicated alliances!

    If they do not like what you say, it’s deleted.

    If you restore it, they remove it again.

    Restore it again and they remove it again and so forth until a volunteer “administrator blocks you from further edits. Usually the administrator is elected and beholding to those you are opposing so if you do not belong to any click or manufacture your own “fiefdom” you are lost!

    That would be okay if they were calling themselves a Blog site, but they are calling themselves an “encyclopedia” even though one does not need any particular education, experience, expertise in any field, or writing skills to be an “editor”. Of course that is a train wreck just waiting to happen, especially when someone has an axe to grind against another person or organization and they libel them.

    Making matters worse, there are many mirror sites like “” that cite these “articles” because anyone is free to copy and paste and use any content found on the site as long as they reference (and simultaneously promote Wikipedia while doing it). Therefore anyone with a PC can create or completely change the truth to suit themselves -even libel someone — on Wikipedia, and then anyone with a PC can mirror the articles in other sites calling themselves dictionaries, encyclopedias and further this perversion of the true and facts.

    That is ridiculous, like Wikipedia itself. All the other sites that carry any Wikipedia libelous content should be included in future class action suits, as well!

  4. I couldn’t agree more with XMAN. Wikipedia is run by cliques who censor anything they don’t agree with. So much for free speech and the freedom of ideas.

    Those people at Wikipedia should be held accountable. And made to suffer the consequences of their behavior.

  5. I can’t stand Wikipedia, they are not knowledgeable on most of their content, and they are a hierarchy of power tripping morons! The quicker The Senate, and The House get them off the web, the better!

Comments are closed. If you have something you really want to say, tweet @gadgetopia.