Golfer sues Wiki IP address

[Rockefeller]

Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller has launched a lawsuit aimed at the owner of an IP address from which an entry on wikipedia about him was edited.
The edits took place in December last year and contained remarks the golfer says are libelous.

Zoeller is not suing the publisher of the online dictionary but rather the owner of the IP adddress from which the remarks originated.

That happens to be a firm named Josef Silny & Associates of Miami, whose president Josef Silny said the courtcase was "the most bizarre thing that's ever happened in my life."

Silny, doesn't follow golf but said he will get his hired geek to see if he can find out if any of his 45 employees posted the allegations that Zoeller abused both drugs and his family.

"This is completely out of left field," Sliney said

 

[leo]

lol thats kinda funny

 

[Gerry]

I like wikipedia but see that as being the downside. There are no real validations in place to authenticate the content entered. You can virtually post anything and call yourself an expert on anything and people buy into it.

Make me wonder if now they will begin to verify the content. But doubtful. This is an open source international project and no one has the time to do this task.

Nice post!

 

[Focus]

what a total dork..don't sue my I.P. now dipstick! ound:

 

[GAMEFINEST]

whats his plm

 

[Devil Dog]

Bad I.P. Address, Bad!

 

[PeterMan]

You have to admit that it is a serious thing for a person to have information like that posted about them. As mentioned above wiki is huge and people seem to believe everything they read on there... Someone has to take some responsibility...

 

[Bender]

nobody "owns" IP addresses.

 

[Seraphim]

This is preciously why open source articles on individuals is not a good idea. Anyone unfortunate enough to have an article about themselves over at wiki, has to see it as a serious liability. I honestly despise Wikipedia, as a large part of it's web presence looks a lot like search spam to me.

 

[GoPC]

I have an article saved around somewhere that documents a jury finding a website owner liable for slanderous information posted within it (such as a wiki) because as the jury found it, an owner of a website that openly allows and refuses to take steps to modify slanderous materials is by its actions, condoning the abuse and endorsing the information posted within its control. Especially when the compaint was brought to their attention and they've refused to take action.

It would seem to me that the individual filing the complaint, based on this legal precendence, would have litle or no trouble suing the wiki and having the information removed and some remediation as well.

Why they chose to go after an IP address is beyind me... especially with precedent on their side. Unless, they are trying to set a NEW precendent and THEN go after the wiki in a follow up or as an included defendant.

I will watch this with great interest.

GoPC

 

[Rockefeller]

This is just a publicity stunt. Personally, I've never heard of this guy until now..which is probably what he wanted.

 

[GoPC]

You've never heard of Fuzzy? He's a legend!

Great Golfer... in the same ilk as Arnold Palmer, so he's past needing publicity and/or a career. He's retired and this is the last thing I'm sure he's interested in.

GoPC

 

[Creature]

Could Fuzzy not have just asked for the entry to be corrected?

 

[Devil Dog]

Could Fuzzy not have just asked for the entry to be corrected?

Probably what happened but nothing came of it.

 

[Rockefeller]

Could Fuzzy not have just asked for the entry to be corrected?

Why couldn't he correct it?

 

[GoPC]

I think the point of his complaint is that it is allowed in the first place.

li·bel /ˈlaɪbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -beled, -bel·ing or (especially British) -belled, -bel·ling.
–noun
1. Law.
a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b. the act or crime of publishing it.
c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.

THAT is the point. And I have to say, I couldn't agree more. Wiki publishers have a responsibility. Considering that Whois.sc has a direct link from your domain to their wiki and that wiki can say ANYTHING about you that someone has felt to post... it could cost you a $100,000 sale when someone researches your domain and reads something about you that you didn't know was there.

How would that make you feel? What would your damages be? Who's responsible?

Who allowed it to be posted and refused to monitor, correct or even TRY to do anything about it?

It's a legitimate complaing, I think. And that is hard for me to say since I tend to be anti lawsuit in nature. But I think he has a case here... based on prior legal precendent and the fact that retired super stars and celebrities garner their continued earnings on the marketability and value of the name they have created for themselves.

A wiki is a digital tabloid... and tabloids get sued, and loose, every day.

GoPC

 

[Seraphim]

Drug abuse + domestic violence are criminal acts for the most part. I think Fuzzy does have the right to be a little concerned here.