Comments on: Wiki class action lawsuit

By: Bill Thayer

Bill Thayer — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:42:06 +0000

On WikipediaClassAction.Com: guys, you’ve been had…. The site is an obvious spoof. Among the tipoffs: their address is given, in part, as “Springfield, TA” (tell me what state that is); and their phone numbers are on the 555- exchange.

By: Helga

Helga — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:50:25 +0000

Hello admin, nice site ! Good content, eautiful design, thank !1

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 04:18:22 +0000

The real story is of course on http://www.wikipediaclassaction.com/ not on .org

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:59:20 +0000

I am no trademark lawyer, but using the Wikipedia logo/trademark on the lawsuit site seems like infringement to me. Plus, the fact that the site doesn’t list the firm involved raises red flags too. Furthermore, the media has said a “group” in Long Beach, NY… What group? Where does the media get that information? Couldn’t it be one guy sitting in his underwear in his basement chomping on an unlit cigar? Could the media be…oh I don’t know..wrong?!?!?!?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:54:03 +0000

It bounced immediately; i.e., was returned to me. After checking I’d got the address right, I didn’t resend it, of course.

B
B

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:09:23 +0000

This is ridiculous. So someone thought Wikipedia was a legitimate resource? Puleeze!

The website owners have no assessment of blame here. It is very well known that ANYONE can add to or change the information. That disclaimer on their site is enough for anyone with a fourth grade education to understand how totally unreliable the information could be.

After your class action against Wiki, do one for all the lying journalists on TV.

What is YOUR last name jon - or is this a made-up name? See, just about anything is possible in this arena.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:00:49 +0000

In fact, the email addie _does_ work: it’s just slow.

I posted to myself at jon@p2pnet.net, “Does I jon@p2pnet.net exist and am I, therefore?”

It duly arrived and therefore I am, I guess. And so is the email addie. But the one you sent hasn’t shown up.

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:42:15 +0000

No harm done, Jon; but notice that there can be many! reasons why someone appears to be anonymous…. As for the e-mails you’ve missed, take it from someone with a big website: 98% of them weren’t important, or worse. People whose e-mails were (or who like me, thought they were!), they’da prolly made an effort to get to you somehow.

Bill

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:46:15 +0000

The frivolous lawsuit site is obviously written up by an ambulance chaser, likely in league with folks like Andrew Orlowsky who are miffed no one ever takes him seriously. Funny how so many of the first-amendment pundits are having such a hard time with regular folks defining for themselves what is true. Just too asinine for words, really.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:32:19 +0000

oops - someones upset =)

lighten up

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:29:02 +0000

Hi Bill:

Thanks for pointing this out.

Interesting, in the Confucian sense. jon@p2pnet.net used to be OK, although I admit I haven’t tried it for many moons.

So I’ve replaced it with another email addie that I know works.

I don’t even want to think about how many emails I’ve missed because of this

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:55:07 +0000

And after I find myself insulted, albeit only in private, by being called an “Anonymous Coward”, I e-mailed you at the address you yourself give,
jon@p2pnet.net
and my e-mail was promptly returned because
“The following message could not be delivered to jon@p2pnet.net because the domain p2pnet.net does not exist.”

Well, I can see that it does, at least on the Web if not as an e-mail server: but this takes the cake! In fact, it is you (whoever you are) that are hiding anonymously.

Bill Thayer
(at address previously stated)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:45:38 +0000

The article is in error in stating that people now have to register to post. People now have to register *to initiate an article*. Unregistered people continue to be able to edit existing articles; the Seigenthaler mess would not be prevented: the libel was in an edit to an existing article.

(I don’t wish to register here because of privacy concerns, but I’m Bill Thayer of http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/home.html and will confirm it if you send me an e-mail. I also edit as a registered user, under my own name, on Wickedpedia.)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:39:18 +0000

Dumbasses. They can’t control what others write on Wikipedia.
They didn’t write it, nor tell anyone else to write it, so how can you blame them for it?
It’s like a guy owns a gun shop. Someone comes in, buys a gun and goes and kills his wife.
The gun shop owner isn’t responsible for the buyer’s (or in Wikipedia’s case, the users’) actions. He hasn’t done anything illegal, he just sold the gun it’s up to the buyer how to use it. Dumbasses. I hope their lawsuit fails mizerably.