Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-12-07/In the news

Discuss this story

Are we sure that Wikipedia is the entity being sued in the Livingstone case? This claim is cited to the UPI piece, which references its claim only to TMZ, whose article does not seem to support it. Skomorokh 04:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'd like to know too. I'm assuming someone "in the know" passed this information on, but neither of the articles cited to the Livingston blurb seem to indicate he's suing Wikipedia... the impression I get is he's suing the person stalking him, perhaps as a "john/jane doe", in order to win a judgement and force law enforcement to take action. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suit appears, by news accounts, to be directed at the specific editor who made the allegations on Wikipedia. I assume that Wikipedia has been asked for any information to identify him, and I would be surprised if Wikipedia did not furnish such information to prevent being named corporately in the suit. Collect (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't sue an encyclopedia. At worst, he's suing the Wikimedia Foundation, not "Wikipedia". +An gr 12:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The skepticism is correct. See the more accurate legal coverage at Copyrights and Campaigns and THR, Esq -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the above and added a source with the correct information. If anyone has a problem with this feel free to revert. KnightLago (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, Seth. The blog entry is especially helpful and interesting. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint says Coupleguys Inc. is the plantiff, so isn't it technically them (his publicist) that is suing, rather than Livingston himself? Shouldn't it also mention that they allege this is a continuing incident, and not just confined to Wikipedia? Grsz¹¹ 15:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, technically, but it is him. They would not be doing it unless he authorized it. In the news is usually pretty brief and just focuses on Wikipedia. The sources are there if someone wants to go read about the whole incident. IMHO it is fine as is now. KnightLago (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, if you're suing someone for defaming you with false claims you're in a gay relationship, is "Coupleguys" really the wisest choice to be the plaintiff? :-) Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found that rathor ammusing when I noticed it ^^ «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]