Mark wrote:

The problem with this view is that Wikipedia by nature cannot "decide" what to publish---we "publish" anything that anyone posts,

automatically and without review, because that >is how wikis work. What we *continue* to publish is the result of the consensus of editors.

Well, yes and no. True, the WP community doesn't control the posting of content, so "it" (whatever it is) can't decide, initially. But (and let me stress, I'm no lawyer), there is something and someone behind WP: the Wikimedia Foundation and Jimmy Wales. I'm not sure what the *exact* relationship between the Foundation, Wales and WP is, but I would guess that in the case of a suit the Foundation and Wales would be named as defendants, for they in effect publish WP.

I don't, in general, see a problem with this. If something is

incorrect in any way, it should be

corrected or removed (whether it is libelous or not is

irrelevant---non-libelous misinformation has no

place either). The "what if [x]" scenarios seem pretty far-fetched.

"Should" is the operative word here. Yup. The problem is that such misinformation, often, is not changed. WP has one of the same problems as communism: everything is everyone's responsibility, so everything is no one's responsibility. So what "should" be done often isn't. Far fetched? I imagine Mr. Seigenthaler has already contacted his lawyer (but I hope not).

Best,

Marshall Poe The Atlantic Monthly www.memorywiki.org