4 ms·
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 dif
by 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 agoYou'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.