The story of John Seigenthaler Sr. is the main issue that is currently in the Wikipedia news at Wikipedia:Village pump (news). The original claim relates to an article by USA Today. See here: [1].
To summarise, basically, John Seigenthaler Sr. is upset because he found his Wikipedia article, at John Seigenthaler Sr. to be untrue. He therefore tried to sue Wikipedia for libel. As a result, this made news headlines the world over, and resulted in an interview between Wikipedia founder and John Seigenthaler. This also led to a proposed policy of Wikipedia in relation to libellous statements. It also led to anonymous editors not being allowed to write articles. There have been many other repercussions. The end result, as recently reported in the New York Times [2], is that the original author of the "smear" was identified, has been fired from his work, and has admitted that it was just a silly little prank. John Seigenthaler Sr. has apologised, and all is good in the world. Or is it? So here I provide my analysis.
The claim edit
I would like to firstly quote what John Seigenthaler Sr. found objectionable. As follows:
"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
Why it is not libel edit
Now, he claims that this is a smear. Is it really?
First and foremost, it does not state that John Seigenthaler Sr. actually did assassinate JFK or Bobby Kennedy. It just states that he was suspected of it. Had it stated that he did kill them, then yes, there is a case for libel. Nor did he state that the police suspected him, that he was arrested, that he was questioned, or in any other way that he was officially suspected. It just states that someone had suspected him.
First and foremost, this is not an untrue statement. The assassination of JFK was, at the time, one of the most highly publicised events of all time. At least 20 million people saw reports about it otherwise heard about it, and by now there have been over 1 billion discussions about it. Now, if you do your odds, the likelihood is that at least 1 person at some stage suggested that John Seigenthaler Sr. had done it. After all, he was involved in the administration (a fact).
So the likelihood is that a handful of people at some stage said to each other "You know that John Seigenthaler Sr.? Maybe he did it? You never know". Therefore, it is a true statement. It is unverified, and hence doesn't meet WP:V, but it is not libellous.
If it was libel, whose fault is it? edit
Wikipedia is self governed, and should not be accepted as fact. Anyone with any knowledge of how Wikipedia works should know that, from time to time, there are going to be falsities pushed forward. Some of these falsities are points of views, others are misconceptions, and others are malicious. But the reality is that, whilst Wikipedia goes to every effort to ensure accuracy, it actually is never going to be accurate. Nor are any other encyclopaedias of course, but that is something that I will get in to later. The reality is that, if it was wrong, John Seigenthaler Sr. should have simply gone in and corrected the information, simple as that. There is no need to threaten to sue anyone.
The resulting ban of anon creation of articles edit
I for one think that this is a wonderful idea. Allowing anons to create articles leads to people getting the false assumption that Wikipedia is an anarchy with no rules governing its use, and hence leads to all sorts of newbie problems (see: User:Zordrac/newbies). By banning anons from creating articles it gives an automatic assumption that people are expected to behave. Whether it helps security I don't know. But I think that it is a good idea.
The resulting libel policy suggestions edit
I think that this is a very bad idea. Whilst I don't mind Wikipedia making people aware of the libel rules, I think that having policy suggesting such things as "The author must check to see if it is rumour, and if it is rumour, then they must not print it" is silly. For one thing, its not our fault if something that we think is valid turns out to be a lie. There is nothing illegal about repeating a lie - the only problem is if we start it. The second thing is that sometimes it is important to repeat a rumour. For example, can you imagine writing an article on Michael Jackson that did not include allegations of child molestation? It would not be very accurate, would it? The issue should be whether it is presented as a rumour or presented as fact. If we present as fact something which we know to be a rumour, then we are doing the wrong thing.
But again, this gets backs to the misconception that the anon editor of the John Siegenthaler Sr. article had in fact broken the law. The reality is that they had not. They are not guilty of libel. Nor is Wikipedia responsible even if they were guilty.
How it was found edit
User:Daniel Brandt, who was banned from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia also slandered him in an article here: Daniel Brandt, was the one that saved Wikipedia by finding him. See here: [3] (bottom of page). Now, the great irony here is that Daniel Brandt, who is loathed by Wikipedia, actually helped them out. Thanks to Daniel Brandt, they are saved.
Now, if you look at the Daniel Brandt article, you will note that he himself wanted his own article to be deleted, claimed that he had been libelled. But Wikipedia wouldn't lift a finger, instead accusing him of vandalising his own page.
And indeed Daniel Brandt has been one of the great critics of Wikipedia, making his own "Wikipedia watch" web site (he also has a "Google watch" web site to monitor google).
And then even more irony here. The site where Daniel Brandt first advertised the discovery was Wikipedia Review [4], a site which Wikipedia adjudged was not sufficently notable to warrant its own page, see here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review.
So how can Wikipedia claim that a web site that has helped to save them in their most serious issue to date is not notable? Its quite ridiculous really. And how can they claim that Daniel Brandt is worthy of being banned when he just helped them out? It makes you wonder...
What should have happened edit
I don't think that John Seigenthaler Sr. had any right to be upset. It is akin to someone writing an article about me and saying that "At one stage, Zordrac was believed to have had sex with a pig". In all likelihood, at some stage someone has believed that. I might think that it was irrelevant and want it removed, but come on now. Or perhaps more subtly, someone said "At one stage, Zordrac's editing of the Peter Falconio disappearance was thought to be extremely biased in favour of defence, and some thought that he might be friends with the accused". Nothing wrong with people saying that. They should of course reference it, then try to put it in the context of the neutral point of view.
Now, obviously, John Seigenthaler Sr. is going to get upset about it. Of course he would. Who wouldn't be upset about such an article? I wouldn't even want to have an article about me full stop, unless it was wonderfully positive. Indeed, at various points people have written web pages about me, or parts of them, about one of my internet names, and it isn't nice at all.
But how Wikipedia responded is the problem. Wikipedia should have just told him to shove it basically. I know, we were being kind and all of that, but seriously Wikipedia did nothing wrong. Why fuel the fire and apologise? It's not like Wikipedia is perfect in all other ways.
Why Wikipedia is not perfect and also why it is better than print encyclopaedias edit
Wikipedia is not perfect, and never will be perfect. It will never be as good as a print encyclopaedia because its editors are not trained and are not working together. Whilst a print encyclopaedia has a consistent point of view throughout, Wikipedia does not. Wikipedia does not work as a collaboration, rather, it works in opposition to each other.
But this is actually the very self-same reason why Wikipedia is *better* than print encyclopaedias. How often have you read something in an encyclopaedia that was absolute balony? Try reading about practically anything from history. Iraq war, Vietnam war, any war you want. It will be absolute balony. The reason is simple - history is written by the winners. So only one point of view is represented.
Yet if you go to Wikipedia, we actually remove POV arguments. For example, Wikipedia doesn't use "dictator" to describe Saddam Hussein. It represents points of view from everywhere. It demonstrates arguments that are barely known. It also talks about topics that are barely heard of. For example, can you imagine reading anything about a talker in an encyclopaedia? Or about jump the shark? And indeed, do they have an article about Hip hop fashion? For those articles, you would not find an encyclopaedia in the world that has as good a documentation of them as Wikipedia has. Not to mention fuck which, not only won't you find in any encyclopaedia, but you will also find it incredibly difficult to find on a google search - because it is profane and you might get a lot of spam. Its also wonderful for documenting porn stars etc, without the spam.
Not only that, but Wikipedia is up to date, and hence is wonderful for looking up current events. Wikipedia currently has the best set of information about the Peter Falconio disappearance of anywhere in the entire world. Whilst there might be an improvement once the trial is over, right now that is the number 1 best resource available for anyone.
Faults of Wikipedia edit
Lets get this straight - Wikipedia is far from perfect. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia lets basically anyone be admin. Wikipedia is mean to newbies. Wikipedia is caught between not allowing anyone to make any articles versus letting too much rubbish come in. Wikipedia is a place for intellectual snobbery. Wikipedia is a pretence at a democracy yet in reality is a business heirarchical system, as with any other internet community. There is a lot of corruption on Wikipedia, a lot of unfairness, and a lot of hostility, as you would see on any other internet community.
There are so many faults that you could be going on forever. And then, once you're done, start with the same set of faults for Google, for LiveJournal and for any other internet community. Whilst Wikipedia's might be slightly different in application, essentially they are the same.
The best thing about Wikipedia edit
Next to impossible to get banned. I think that's a very good thing. It says tolerance. We all make mistakes, and its good to know that we can keep coming.
The worst thing about Wikipedia edit
The bullying is definitely the worst part. The bullying of new users stopping them from making new articles or contributing, the bullying of anyone who ever votes "keep" against the norm in an AFD, or anyone who votes "delete" against the norm in an RFA or anyone who tries to suggest a change in any policy. The bullying is horrendous and far worse than the norm.
But if you go to LiveJournal, you have high school gossip mongering, so is it really any worse?
Every community has something terrible like that. Wikipedia is no different. People are people. People are cruel. This is the reality.