Not an expert on Section 230, but I wonder if Wikipedia might be treated differently than Twitter or Facebook.
Section 230 says that websites aren't the "publisher" of content posted by their users. This makes sense for a forum where a user posts under their own name without much/any oversight from the site itself.
Wikipedia isn't a forum, it presents itself as a crowd-sourced encyclopedia and does not make it clear which user contributed what content. Encyclopedias are inherently claiming the accuracy of their information-that's their whole purpose.
Seems to me, the first step would be Project Veritas asking Wikipedia to remove the content. If it doesn't, they may have a case. Project Veritas has sued media outlets before, maybe they should roll the dice.
I would love this to become a snowball effect. There are so many lies on Wikipedia about anyone right of Mao. Imagine them being sued left and right for their slanderous BS. To this day the GG article is one of the worst they have ever made just as an example.
Can you sue wikifaggia for defamation or are they protected by the fact that “””””anyone””””” can edit articles?
Not an expert on Section 230, but I wonder if Wikipedia might be treated differently than Twitter or Facebook.
Section 230 says that websites aren't the "publisher" of content posted by their users. This makes sense for a forum where a user posts under their own name without much/any oversight from the site itself.
Wikipedia isn't a forum, it presents itself as a crowd-sourced encyclopedia and does not make it clear which user contributed what content. Encyclopedias are inherently claiming the accuracy of their information-that's their whole purpose.
Here's an article that pretty much answers your question with "I don't know, probably not": https://www.cnet.com/culture/is-wikipedia-safe-from-libel-liability/
But here's wikipedia's own guidelines on libelous content where it acknowledges that such content may put it at legal risk: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel
Seems to me, the first step would be Project Veritas asking Wikipedia to remove the content. If it doesn't, they may have a case. Project Veritas has sued media outlets before, maybe they should roll the dice.
It'd make one helluva bit on their 'retracto' wall to make Wikimedia their bitch.
I would love this to become a snowball effect. There are so many lies on Wikipedia about anyone right of Mao. Imagine them being sued left and right for their slanderous BS. To this day the GG article is one of the worst they have ever made just as an example.