We’re coming up on an important birthday for the Blogosphere. On January 15, 2001 computer guru Jimmy Wales founded our beloved research tool — Wikipedia. Jimmy had been working on an Internet-based encyclopedia project called Nupedia, created in the traditional way by subject matter experts. But the peer review process was painfully slow.

The “wiki” concept, in which a project is put on the Internet for community contribution and correction, was gaining traction. Why not, Jimmy reasoned, create an encyclopedia in this way? Just let all the people in the world with Internet access contribute. Initially the articles would undoubtedly contain some errors, but eventually the free marketplace of ideas would correct them. The result would be the most powerful reference the collective intelligence of the world could create.

The rest is an historic Internet success story. We all use it and love it. Wikipedia has become the largest reference website on the Internet. There are currently well over nine hundred thousand articles and more being added all the time. It is a living, comprehensive, and current resource.

There is a downside to the wiki concept, and that is the vandalism that mean-spirited “trolls” can wreak. From time to time an article can be trashed by villians who log in and write dishonest, biased, or obnoxious material. Sooner or later users with good intentions will repair the damaged prose. But in some places and for some lengths of time, a wiki reference that is open to everyone can host undesirable content.

Those of us accustomed to living on the Internet understand this. The wiki’s greatest strength is also its greatest vulnerability. And most experienced web users believe that the upside potential for networking the vast knowledge of all mankind far outweighs the temporary glitches.

But there are still thought police who try to force a more controlled environment. At the heart of the dispute is the classic divide between those who want the “nanny state” to assume the role of information management and others who believe in personal responsibility.

The Wikimedia Foundation is the not-for-profit organization responsible for developing and maintaining Wikipedia. A group of individuals allegedly concerned about defamatory material on the website is attempting to organize a class action lawsuit against the foundation. See WikipediaClassAction.org:

There is a problem with the operation and functionality of Wikipedia. The basic problem is that none of the Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., or any of the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia, consider themselves responsible and therefore accountable for the content.

Our primary concern is that Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. and JIMBO (Jimmy) Wales believe themselves above the law, refusing to remove offending, defamatory and untrue content, even going so far as to cause further damage by highlighting the content, asking people to vote on its removal, etc. The system is full of problems and these are intentional in design and purposeful in their intent; to cause harm, to permit and encourage a system of anonymous libel and we submit, the result of Wales’ deep-seated upset with ridicule he suffered the result of his porn business; something like the way that Richard Desmond acts because he has never quite been accepted into ’society’ because of his King of Porn history. Similarly, Wales uses Wikipedia to libel and ‘get back’ of those he doesn’t like…

WikipediaClassAction.org is currently gathering complaints from the entire Internet community, including individuals, corporations, partnerships, etc., who believe that they have been defamed and or who have been or are the subject of anonymous and malicious postings to the popular online encyclopedia WikiPedia….

Our intention and the purpose of this website are multi-fold. Specifically, we seek to achieve the following:

• Expose the inherent faults and flaws of the Wikipedia online encyclopedia;
• Force Wikimedia Foundation Inc., through legal action, to change its current practices that permit anyone to post content to their website, without formal attribution and without recourse back to Wikimedia Foundation and or the author of the content;
• Recover substantial monetary damages, on behalf of those who have suffered as a direct result of Wikimedia’s flawed business model;
• Establish a precedent that will ensure similar websites are held responsible for their content….

If you are interested in joining in our planned lawsuit, please contact us.

While their concerns are to all appearances sincere, even such a “do-gooder” position results from a complete failure to understand the culture of the Web. But there may be more to this than meets the eye. Jason Scott, a long-time historian of the computer world and BBC documentarian offers this comment:

The “Wikipedia Class Action Lawsuit” is, in point of the fact, the latest stunt by a Greek-based set of businesspeople with pretty questionable tactics. They have been in the middle of a lot of controversy both with Wikipedia and with a couple other groups….

Here it is, in short form:

• There is a group involved in questionable business practices.
• This group has an arm that releases “press releases” and “newswire” info.
• This group has had some run-ins with Wikipedia.
• This group is therefore attacking Wikipedia to stop them from reporting it.

The group in question is called QuakeAid, and purports to be a charitable organization focused on the relief of earthquake victims. In the rush to provide humanitarian aid following last year’s tsunami, many such outfits positioned themselves to receive the outpouring of funding from concerned individuals. Scrutiny of credentials was minimal in the imperatives of the moment.

Subsequently, several charity lists have dropped QuakeAid from their rosters. Wikipedia simply documented the facts in a non-judgemental article.

Sites which have removed QuakeAID’s public listing

• TakingITGlobal removed QuakeAID from their website on January 7, 2005.
• NASA removed QuakeAID from their web crawler index on January 10, 2005.
• VolunteerMatch removed QuakeAID’s listing on February 4, 2005.

The so-called charity responded angrily with an article in a periodical published by their parent organization. QuakeAid is subordinate to BAOU, Inc. (formerly known as MPC Trust). BAOU also manages the periodical OfficialWire (formerly known as OfficialSpin), for self-promotion, but giving it the appearance of an independent news source.

OfficialWire attacked Wikipedia in this article:

One Man’s Personal Quest Against Earthquake Charity
by Jennifer Monroe

While many tens of thousands of people are busy helping the victims of the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunamis, one man has chosen to spend his time and energies in other ways. This is the tale of how Christian Wirth … has contributed…

Some of you may have heard of Wikipedia. For those of you who have not, Wikipedia is an Internet project that is trying to build free encyclopedias in all languages of the world….

Wirth, better known by the pseudonym RaD Man, calls himself a “computer artist and historian”.

Wirth spends much of his day editing articles published on Wikipedia….

Shortly after the tragic events of Sunday, December 26, 2004, in which more than 155,000 have been killed, a page was published on Wikipedia listing various organizations who were accepting donations on behalf of the victims. The page is located here.

I added a link on that page for QuakeAID, a charitable organization for which I volunteer. According to the Wikipedia terms of use, anyone can contribute….

Soon after I added the QuakeAID link, RaD Man took it upon himself to make unfounded, untrue and libellous statements about QuakeAID, published on Wikipedia, based solely on search results or indeed, the lack of search results found in Google—the popular search engine.

Since then, he has waged what can only be described as a personal war against QuakeAID. He blatently and repeated removed the QuakeAID link and said he would do so each time it was restored.

“I do find it laughable that you refer to yourself as a ‘reputable charity’ which has been in existence since 1998 yet in 2005 is still not recognized by the U.S. government as an actual charitable non-profit agency,” he said.

According to Wirth, one must be recognized by the U.S. government…

Well, now that we have laid out most of the scenario for you, dear readers, here are some data points to assist you in your evaluation of the relative merits of the two sides in this argument:

1. On their website, the plaintiffs have posted a stolen copy of Wikipedia’s copyrighted logo, representing it as their own material.
2. The rhetoric of the plaintiffs is unreasoned and childish.
3. Documented litigation involving the plaintiffs before a Scottish court indicates the possible misuse of similar-sounding domain names. It also reveals that while the parent company BAOU conducted business in the UK, they were organized safely offshore in Mauritania. See OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION  OPINION OF LORD DRUMMOND YOUNG in the cause BONNIER MEDIA LIMITED Pursuers; against (FIRST) GREG LLOYD SMITH and (SECOND) KESTREL TRADING CORPORATION Defenders: etc.
4. Investigative journalism by the Jewish Defense Organization reveals BAOU as Nazi apologists and public relations representatives for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and HAMAS. See JDO UNCOVERS SHADOWY TERRORIST FRONT BASED OVERSEAS
5. Bookseller Amazon.com sued this outfit for using Greek domain names to misrepresent themselves as Amazon. See first reference below.

Related:

Intellectual Property Litigation Practice

AMAZON.COM SUES CYBERSQUATTER, READIES TRIAL TEAM

Washington, D.C., September 3, 1999 – Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of leading online retailer Amazon.com against cybersquatter Greg Lloyd Smith and his affiliated companies. The suit alleges violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) statutes, trademark infringement, trademark dilution and copyright infringement, among other legal claims. The 11-count suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on August 18, 1999. Morgan Lewis has been named lead trial counsel, with Intellectual Property litigator William E. Wallace, III steering the trial team.

The suit accuses Smith and his wife, who live in Greece, of establishing a copycat Internet site with the domain names www.amazon.gr and amazon.com.gr. The couple allegedly has held themselves out as “Amazon.gr, Greece’s Biggest Bookstore,” in a transparent attempt to confuse consumers by trading on Amazon.com’s success. The suit also accuses Smith and his wife of demanding $1.63 million from Amazon.com to buy their operation, which Amazon.com’s complaint describes as a “thinly veiled shakedown.”

“The Amazon.com suit was filed because companies are saying they will no longer be the target of petty extortionists,” says Wallace, who chairs the Intellectual Property Litigation practice, “This is why the case has a RICO claim and may be the first, but not the last, Internet RICO suit.” He adds: “Legitimate and honest users are realizing that they have a special responsibility to protect the integrity of the Internet.”

downloadsquad:  Wikipedia haters unite!

Posted Dec 13th 2005 — Note to self: never do anything ever again. I’ll only get sued. Because pooh-poohers everywhere need love too, there’s now a class-action suit against Wikipedia. Granted, there have been some problems with editorial content. But what we’re seeing here is a clash between the open nature of the internet, and technologies like wikis, versus the slower, closed process of making a book-based encyclopedia. My question is simple: why does everything have to come down to nastiness and litigation? FutureMAN got a snippy little response when he tried to contact said Wikipedia haters, and I join him in encouraging everyone else to contact these crazy cats. Be nice please. There’s no need to get short. Calm rational minds can figure out an amicable resolution. I’ll admit something should probably get fixed, but I just don’t like how the New American Way is to affect change at the business end of a subpeona.

Gadgetopia:  Wikipedia Lawsuit

This was bound to happen at some point, I suppose. Very interesting to see how this is going to play out. How long before the “Wikipedia Defense Fund” pops up?….This is not an unhealthy thing. The fact is, this was bound to happen at some point. So let’s face up to it, resolve it, and figure out where everyone stands…

Local Insanity:  Wikipedia Lawsuit

I ran across a class action lawsuit against Wikipedia today, and the letter on the front page put me into one of those moods where I just have to tell people why they’re being stupid….

Blogger Brian Donovan wrote a thoughtful and long response to the class action statement. It is worth visiting his blog and reading all of his letter.