4 ms·

It's because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publi

by akolbe 5y ago

It's because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In this case, the Wikimedia Foundation (which owns Wikipedia) is the "provider ... of an interactive computer service". The "information content provider" is the individual user of Wikipedia who writes or edits an article—usually doing so under a pseudonym. (They're all unpaid volunteers—anyone can click "Edit" at any time and add something to a Wikipedia article.) For better and worse, this is the legal situation in the US.

Ekaros 5y ago
One makes wonder. If someone was to make a meta publisher of other publishers, even anonymous ones they could monetize content that is libellous? And they couldn't be punished for the act?
elliekelly 5y ago
In theory Mr. White could sue the individual wikipedia contributor rather than wikipedia themselves. I tend to agree with GP, though. There is a fundamental difference between a “content provider” who is attributing content to themselves (as on social media platforms) vs a content provider whose content is attributed to the interactive computer service. Surely if @Jack sent a defamatory tweet both he and Twitter could be held responsible. He’s both a user and an agent of Twitter. I think Wikipedia contributors are both users and agents in the same way.
- akolbe 5y ago
  You're making an astute observation about how Wikipedia is different from, say, Twitter or Facebook. Twitter and Facebook do not claim their users' content as their own in the same way the Wikimedia Foundation does in the case of Wikipedia, where when they solicit donations for themselves they make no distinction between support for themselves and support for Wikipedia. So I understand why you would see editors as agents for the Wikimedia Foundation. Still, Section 230 is what it is, and the Foundation has consistently been given the benefit of its protection.

by akolbe 5y ago

Ekaros 5y ago

One makes wonder. If someone was to make a meta publisher of other publishers, even anonymous ones they could monetize content that is libellous? And they couldn't be punished for the act?

elliekelly 5y ago

In theory Mr. White could sue the individual wikipedia contributor rather than wikipedia themselves. I tend to agree with GP, though. There is a fundamental difference between a “content provider” who is attributing content to themselves (as on social media platforms) vs a content provider whose content is attributed to the interactive computer service. Surely if @Jack sent a defamatory tweet both he and Twitter could be held responsible. He’s both a user and an agent of Twitter. I think Wikipedia contributors are both users and agents in the same way.

akolbe 5y ago
You're making an astute observation about how Wikipedia is different from, say, Twitter or Facebook. Twitter and Facebook do not claim their users' content as their own in the same way the Wikimedia Foundation does in the case of Wikipedia, where when they solicit donations for themselves they make no distinction between support for themselves and support for Wikipedia. So I understand why you would see editors as agents for the Wikimedia Foundation. Still, Section 230 is what it is, and the Foundation has consistently been given the benefit of its protection.