Kentucky considers banning anonymous speech
Posted on March 18th, 2008
According to this excellent blog, Kentucky is considering a bill banning anonymous online speech. (The blog is the class blog for “The Web Difference” course I’m co-teaching, with John Palfrey, at Harvard Law.)
* * *
And speaking of courses, I find it heartwarming that today I’m able to open our session on whether the Web has changed marketing by using some slides on “what is marketing” from John Hauser’s Spring 2005 course on marketing at MIT, which is available as open courseware. Gotta love the open courseware.
Tagged with: anonymity • berkman • digital rights • digital_rights • education • marketing • mit • net neutrality • open_courseware
[...] Kentucky considers banning anonymous speech [...]
On the subject of online identities, here’s an interesting one for you. A journalist (so-called, named [REMOVED BY DW] ) had a sister ([REMOVED BY DW] ) who got dinged on Wikipedia (an article on Wikipedia that sister [REMOVED BY DW] wrote about herself was deleted), so sister [REMOVED BY DW] took the dispute out of Wikipedia and onto the pages of her newspaper, a tabloid called SF Weekly. Essentially, she used her newspaper’s resources to try to “out” a Wikipedia editor.
It created quite a controversy on Wikipedia and eventually led to the dismissal of [REMOVED BY DW] from the SF Weekly.
You can read behind-the-scenes about what really happened starting here (scroll to “Tawdry Tabloid Journalist”):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....nistrators‘_noticeboard/IncidentArchive372
I edited this story and I can assure you that [REMOVED BY DW] did not get fired for this story or any other. [REMOVED BY DW] decided to leave the paper to take a job with a local documentary filmmaker. She gave her notice before the Wikipedia story was published. She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister’s fights with Griot and her sister’s role is mentioned high up in our story. Bottom line: We stand by the story.
Comment by Will Harper, Managing Editor, SF Weekly — February 26, 2008 @ 01:55PM
An Open Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation
To Whom It May Concern:
I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source. I am none of the persons I am being accused of and do not suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly known as MPD. My attorney, Richard Rosenthal, has been supplied with these facts along with a request that all false claims, slanderous remarks and defaming content concerning me be removed promptly from the site. Thank you.
Sincerely,
[REMOVED BY DW]
Comment by [REMOVED BY DW] — February 13, 2008 @ 04:04PM
[REMOVED BY DW] most definitely used Wikipedia as a source. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I give you exhibit A:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ts/Telogen
Please check the IP address of the defamatory and false comments made by “Boscko” and report them to SF Weekly editor Will Harper at your earliest convenience.
User:Griot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
See block log • confirmed accounts • suspected socks • Checkuser request
Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppeteers
I was contacted by the person “Boscko” complained about in the comments above. The person considers Boscko’s remarks to be “blatantly false and defamatory.” I have removed the person’s name from the various comments because there’s a good chance this person is right.
I’m tempted to remove the entire thread on the grounds of irrelevance to my post, not to mention that the initial comment is nothing more than a personal attack. I may still remove the thread.
– David Weinberbger
…
Mit poker spielen download bonus bei poker poker game jeu du casino gratuit poker nicht online…
[DW- I've edited this content. See the next comment for the explanation.] The “blatantly false and defamatory” statements are anything but.
Why intrigue with another’s censorship?
[Name Removed], a writer for a newspaper called the SF Weekly, tried to “out” a Wikipedia editor who, she alleged, removed an article about her sister Jeanne Marie from Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. You can read [Name Removed]’s article here:
[link removed]
Fortunately for those of us who value privacy, [Name Removed] was forced to resign from her newspaper for invading someone’s privacy — and more importantly, using the resources of a newspaper to “out” someone.
BTW, you can read the editor’s side of the story here:
[link removed]
The case has become quite famous in journalistic circles.
I’m removing the editor’s name from the previous comment and I’m closing the comment thread. I have no idea what this is about and don’t have the time or capacity to learn enough about it to trust my judgment. So, the name is removed, the thread is shut, and you should take your spat somewhere else.