Men sue Wikipedia for continuing to publish their names

The General and the Particular

On the general and particular. To the one, I don't disagree with you in general. To the other, though, this particular case is a strange rhetorical question mark:

"Punishments follow people long after they've been repaid."​

Okay, work with me here, please: Is the historical record in and of itself "punishment"?

From there a number of sticky questions arise: What is Wikipedia? Is it a web site? An encyclopedia? Are those two conditions mutually exclusive? What makes it different from, say, Britannica or Grolier? How does authorship and editorial bottlenecking at Wikipedia compare to a paper encyclopedia? How does Wikipedia differ from Encarta?

All of this orbits the underlying question of whether or not Wikipedia constitutes some form of punishment.

At present, I cannot conclude that it is.

That is a very broad, and therefore problematic standard. Again, the only road to this question is to define Wikipedia accordingly and go from there.

One difference, for instance, between Wikipedia and a paper encyclopedia is that the online encyclopedia can be larger and cover more topics. I don't ever expect to open a paper encyclopedia and find a current and accurate list of Family Guy episodes. I don't expect to scan Britannica in order to argue how many studio albums the Screaming Trees released, or to prove that Floater's "Midnight Ride" was once titled, "Silt". Nor would I expect to find a primary entry about Walter Sedlmayr.

But what does that mean to Wikipedia? To readers and contributors? To criminal perpetrators?

If people were handing out leaflets like they do for sex offenders, your argument here might carry more weight. But there is a great difference between, say, assaulting a prior offender with a baseball bat and publishing in Wikipedia the name of somebody's legally-acknowledged killer.
____________________

Notes:

"Sex Offender's Attacker: 'I Would Do It Again'". KIRO TV. June 19, 2008. KIROTV.com. November 17, 2009. http://www.kirotv.com/news/16658145/detail.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

im not so sure tiassa. There was a study done on sex offenders which suggested releacing there names to the public increases the chance of reoffending, i wouldnt be surprised if the link was even stronger in cases like theft and drug convictions. I mean if you cant work because you have a conviction following you for the rest of your life no matter where you go then whats the chances that your going to "stay on the straight and narrow". Then there are those who are convicted and then had convictions quashed ect or even been found innocent, what chance have they got of being belived. Look at the O J Simpson case, look at the Australian Chambilin case. Personally i think its in the best intrests of ALL if NO offenders name was relaced even post trial, the cops can have that infomation and if nessary employers (under strict cirumstances, for instance if the person wants to work with children or vunerable groups) and community groups and other goverment agencies and of course the courts but that should be as far as it goes. I mean there was a case against a Queensland sex offender which had to be abandoned because it wasnt belived he had ANY hope of a fair trial

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Abstract relationships

I'm torn about the relationship between the network and one's career. To the one, isn't there some woman whose name is now the catch-phrase for getting fired because of something you did online that is completely unrelated to work? Ah, yes, "dooced". And while that started with a fairly straightforward notion—tattling on your co-workers via a blog—and became famous over something stupid (wearing your work uniform in photos intended to sexually titillate), the phenomenon has grown. People's Facebook pages, YouTube videos they had no idea were posted, and old blog entries are affecting their status in the job market and among college admissions directors.

So when I hear about the random person who lost a job because their former lover posted a homemade blowjob video online, it's almost a coin toss. To the one, it's absolute bullshit that someone should be diminished by such an event. To the other, well, if that person did perform the act and allow the recording? I mean, yeah, sure, I believe in trust, too. But just call it a lesson about who you trust and why, and move on with life if you can. I don't doubt that it's not so easy in practice, but come on.

The problem here is that this is murder. I can think of a thousand reasons at least to sympathize with someone whose former friend or lover has outed them on something embarrassing for no good reason. I find it ridiculous that one's blog—short of advocating crimes against property or people—should stand as a roadblock to education or employment. But I have much difficulty with the proposition that we should start expunging the commonly-accessible historical record in order to help murderers escape reminders of what they've done.

It's a clash of idylls. People should be able to handle the public record without going insane. Government should be able to handle such sensitive information properly. But history shows that neither idyll is realistic. The public record remains public as a safeguard against institutional abuse. The institutions are entrusted by the public as a safeguard against overwhelming passions.

The more we restrict the public record, the harder it is for the average citizen to be aware. The harder it is for the average citizen to be aware, the more obstacles he faces in becoming politically active. The more obstacles, the more difficult political activity becomes. Theoretically, we can stop the process at any given stage, but history suggests this is harder in practice than its expression in words.

If only specific interests have access to the information, only specific interests will be well-enough informed to advise the policies.

At what point, then, does a specific interest become a "special interest"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It seems to me that history is a bitch in Germany and I see no readon to import that nonsense to the U.S. Remember that time "the perpetrator" shot and killed President Lincoln? And who can forget when "a certain person" betrayed West Point to the Britiish during the American Revilustion. (Or is that too much? Perhaps I should call it the Revuoltion of a Country Which Shall Not Be Named")

Murders are a matter of legitimate news interest and historical fact. When you tell people they are not allowed to speak the truth, how can you ever expect your society to be healthy?

On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the Germans. No doubt is I lived in Germany I too might want people to refer to the Holocaust as being committed by "certain unnamed persons from a certain nation."

This particular law appears to be pretty sick. Imagine you are a relative of the victim, knowing you can be sued by the murderers if you ever identify them as such? That's sickening.

 

Memory is not Crime, Privacy is the Solution

Society has a right to know it occured, but I don't think they have a right to identify a person after this person has paid their societal debt.

I like Germany's attitude toward rehabilitation. If they are to mature this superior attitude (compared to American which pushes their criminals back into crime through lists and record selling), they should consider a new identity process available as a government service, where by those who've paid their debt can start life anew with a new name, that is untraceable, except by highest government security.

 

The only reason their names should not be on Wikipedia is if the account of the crimes was not factual. The truth is a defense in libel cases. This is not libel, and we have freedom of speech here. Case closed.

 

this is why the internet should be limited to country. the reason is too many laws and legal differences.

 

Obvious problems with the proposition

While I'm dubious about sex offender registries, I find it a difficult proposition that the average citizen should be prohibited from viewing the details of the public record. What you're proposing would result in a sex offender with a high probability of recidivism having his name expunged from his own trial transcripts so that nobody can know who he is.

To the other, what is your boundary for that? Earlier in the thread I asked:

What is the cutoff point in either direction? Does it matter if you got a Minor In Possession when you were nineteen? To the other extreme what of history's monsters? At what point do people not get excused from their crimes?​

I'm having trouble finding an answer to those questions from anyone who considers knowledge to be punishment. I would greatly appreciate yours.

 

The only censorship that I support is censorship of people who meet all of the following conditions: They are lying. They have a 70% or more probability of knowing that they are lying. The lie is not part of a artistic or comedic portrayal in which the artist, comedian or satirist sincerely believes in some other point that the lie helps to express and the artistic liar must not have intended that the lie should be permanently believed.

Otherwise let free speech should never be interfered with.