Golfer Sues Over Vandalized Wikipedia Entry 267
coondoggie writes "Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing to track down the author of what Zoeller says is a defamatory paragraph about him on the Wikipedia site. In an Associated Press story Zoeller's attorney, Scott Sheftall, said he filed a lawsuit against a Miami firm last week because the law won't allow him to sue Wikipedia."
So did he actually say that stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hmm? (Score:5, Insightful)
To repeat another poster: This guy isn't suing Wikipedia. He's suing someone who edited his Wikipedia page to include information that was allegedly defamatory.
As I see it, he's doing the right thing here. Mr. Zoeller's quarrel isn't with Wikipedia, its with the guy who edited his entry. That's the way that Mr. Zoeller is pursuing it. He's filing a "John Doe" lawsuit (the kind made famous by the RIAA) against the person associated with the IP address source of the edit.
Re:So what's the story? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Forgive me for stating the obvious (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So what's the story? (Score:2, Insightful)
a.) send someone to break their kneecaps
b.) smear shit all over their car
c.) call them lies back and sleep with their sister
d.) follow the legal remedy that has been established for centuries and appeal for relief against the harmful action?
Oh that's right. Except in America, the right thing to do is (b).
Re:hmm? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Clarification (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what's the story? (Score:2, Insightful)
He's suing the correct person for (if the accusations are true - and you've seen Wikipedia troll edits, they probably are) a legitimate reason. So the story is that he's not an idiot suing Wikipedia like the rest of the idiots would?
Doing the right thing because you can't do the wrong thing isn't really doing the right thing, is it?
Re:So what's the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what's the story? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, the story is actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
It can be a lot of damage even if you're not an "ImportantPerson(TM)", because we live in an age where bosses google their employees, neighbours google each other, and the village gossip googles the whole freakin' village for some gossip material. We're also in an age where people might glue posters to your door or drive you out of town because they found someone else by the same name rumoured to be a sex offender in some anonymous blog, or as was once the case because they were too stupid to know what "paeditrician" means. (It's a kind of doctor, not a paedophile.) We also live in an age of hypocrisy where someone might hold some rumour against you, not because they believe it, not because they are any better, but because it doesn't fit their bullshit PR corporate image.
So basically carpet bombing the internet, Wikipedia included, with bits of defamation like "JohnTurner admitted in 2007 that he was trying hard to overcome his kiddy porn addiction" or "JohnTurner said he stopped beating his wife nowadays" or "see JohnTurner's guide to surfing for porn undetected at work and using the corporate appserver as a warez site. Excellent reading." can cause a lot of harm even if you're not some celebrity.
E.g., the HR drone for your next job googles you, they don't have the time or the inclination to do a thorough checking. Most of what everyone does at all stages is actually looking for some excuse, any excuse, no matter how lame, to discard as many candidates as possible. It can be just because they didn't like your email provider, or it can be literally by numerology or tarot. (Don't laugh, it's not a joke, there _are_ companies which use numerology or tarot to thin out the candidates pool. Assign a number to each letter in your name, sum them up, sum the digits up until you get a single digit, see if it matches the sum for the company name. If not, your CV goes directly into the garbage bin.) The underlying assumption is that you're just yet another dime-a-dozen peon in a sea of perfectly replaceable and interchangeable peons. PHBs love that assumption. So noone's going to do a thorough checking just for you, see the context, see if such a guide to surfing for porn actually exists anywhere, etc. They'll just google until something bad comes up, then stop.
And it's maybe not a bad thing that someone is suing such a fuckwad and proving once again that anonymity isn't as granted as people think. Sure, noone will bother getting your name out of the ISP if you just posted on Slashdot during work hours, but if you take the step to actively harrass and defame someone, or break any other law, all that anonymity may well be harder to maintain than just being behind a modem. For a lot of people it might just take the essential component out of that greater internet fuckwad recipe. It may even be a good thing.
Re:So what's the story? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So did he actually say that stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
1. "Nigger" is an insult no matter who says it. Differentiating between different races like you're doing and assigning them different levels of free speech based on their color is extremely racist.
2. It is an insult, a worded personal attack. It causes no direct physical harm. It is as excusable as any other insult; moron, jackass, cracker, loser, etc.
3. There are sometimes people that deserve to be insulted. People generally acting like a complete jackass. For instance, a group of trolls who buy tickets to a Michael Richards show with the intent to heckle him the whole time, and then do just that.
4. Don't even begin to talk about people's "true feelings", because the only true feelings you know about are your own. Don't pretend to know how other people feel, and don't even try to judge somebody's feelings and personality based on one remark they make.