Part 9, “Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia.”
(For earlier parts of this series, please click this link: Witch-Hunting a Blogger in Whitewater, Wisconsin.)
From the public records, with the date and sender deleted by the City of Whitewater — Someone writes to complain about a link that I have in Wikipedia. As I’ll show, it’s someone who doesn’t understand how Wikipedia works, or what a link on Wikipedia means.
The exchange appears below in black font, followed by the actual PDF documents I obtained, and then my commentary in blue font.
The exchange:
Subject: Free Whitewater & Wikipedia
Dear Jim, Michelle and Kevin,
[First paragraph of email deleted by City of Whitewater.]One of the rules of Wikipedia is that nobody Is allowed to post false, malicious or harmful material or to promote their own personal interestes [sic], viewpoints or agendas. The administrators take such prohibited behaviors and actions very seriously, enough so that you can contact Wikipedia to file a complaint against anyone who posts defamatory, false or malicious information. I would guess that Wikipedia would not only be willing to delete the link to “Free Whitewater” on the “Whitewater, Wisconsin” Wikipedia page, but that they might also be quite willing to give you the name of the person who first posted the link, especially since this person is engaging in the very actions that Wikipedia and it’s [sic] editors have prohibited.
I would also think that both Wikipedia and whoever hosts the “Free Whitewater” website might be more than happy to provide the name of the person since there may be some legal questions ahead for “John Adams”, including possible libel charges and damage to professional reputation. I think consulting a lawyer and providing a lawyer with copies of “John Adams” rants would be the proper starting point.
The files:
I have made the PDF files confirming this exchange available here — 2008-1 (9).
My comments:
1. Misunderstanding Speech. Here I find useful the expression, “that one forgot more than someone else ever knew.” This is political speech, about political topics, public officials, and public matters. There are over 100 political bloggers – many using pseudonyms — in Whitewater. This is commonplace now. Note, though, the false idea of a ‘proper’ starting point.
The original emailer wants to stifle speech, any way he or she can. There’s a bit of desperation in it all; this original email may be from December; I have been writing since May.
2. Misunderstanding Wikipedia. The original writer in this exchange really doesn’t understand Wikipedia. I don’t have an article on Wikipedia — FREE WHITEWATER is listed as an external link on the article for “Whitewater, Wisconsin.” There can be links to all sorts of commentary; it’s like saying that one cannot link to an opinion journal on the “External Links” section of a Wikipedia article.
3. Familiarity. Whoever writes this original email is on a first-name basis with “Jim, Michelle [sic], and Kevin.”
4. Speech and Rants. One man’s rant is another man’s truth. The emails that I have cited speak for themselves, about the some of the employees of our city, and none too well, either.
Next Up on Tuesday, March 4th at 4 PM CST: Part 10, “A Person of Interest.”