p2pnet - rss feed: New Wikipedia post rules
p2p news / p2pnet: Would-be Wikipedia users will now have to register before they can post articles, although unregistered visitors will still be able to edit content already online.
"Prominent journalist John Seigenthaler described as false and malicious’ an entry on Wikipedia implicating him in the Kennedy assassinations," says the BBC. "When he phoned Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s founder, he was told there was no way of finding out who wrote the entry."
The Wikipedia entry, now deleted, said: "John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960’s. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
Seigenthaler was the founding editorial director of USA Today and in an OpEd says:
"At age 78, I thought I was beyond surprise or hurt at anything negative said about me. I was wrong. One sentence in the biography was true. I was Robert Kennedy’s administrative assistant in the early 1960s. I also was his pallbearer. It was mind-boggling when my son, John Seigenthaler, journalist with NBC News, phoned later to say he found the same scurrilous text on Reference.com and Answers.com."
He adds, "And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research - but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them."
Also read:-
BBC - Wikipedia tightens online rules, December 6, 2005
OpEd - A false Wikipedia ‘biography’, November 29, 2005
December 7th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
To quote the wikipedia posting>
>>>
For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby.
<<<
IT’S FUCKING TRUE, he was THOUGHT to be involved. It DOES NOT say he WAS involved. THIS IS NOT ACTIONABLE, yet Seigenthaler wants to declare a thought-crime immediately. Imagine if he would have successfully identified the poster… not for a legitimate lawsuit, because there is nothing that could be sued for, but just to intimidate and harass.
I also like the parting shot at the first amendment and congress at the end. I guess this ass thinks critisizing an ‘elite’ such as himself should warrent the death penalty.
FUCK YOU JOHN SEIGENTHALER, in my constitutionally protected opinion you probably were involved.
December 7th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
Seigenthaler is a waste of life, miserable failure, and a poor excuse for a journalist. In the USA Today article he writes how he went to great lengths to find the indentity of the person, because it upset him so much.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:55 am
Considering this guy is a big wig in the traditional print media, we should first remember that his industry will suffer very badly as the world moves online.
Secondly, there is nothing defamatory about the deleted Wikipedia article.
Secondly point One - He could have removed it himself instead of complaining about it.
Thirdly, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG with people excercising their constitutional rights to free speech? Just because you don’t like what they say does not give you grounds for criticising the laws that allow them to say it.