Defamation action against Wikipedia

The rule on Wikipedia is that anything on the site has to have been published somewhere else first and that this source has to be "reliable" ie newspapers, journals or books - not blogs or personal websites.

This helps ensure that the information is accurate, since we have no way of assessing if people are who they say they are on the internet and anybody can claim to be an "expert" on a topic.

The article under dispute is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine#Cre...

As you can see, this text explicitly attributes these statements to other sources, which do contain the statements. Therefore the lawsuit seems to fail both on the Barrett precedent, but also since we have no reason to believe that something which has been published repeatedly in many other places is untrue.

I don't know what the current status of the lawsuit is, to be honest I'm amazed it was filed in the first place, since I see no way that these individuals can win their case.

The case information is here, but it isn't very informative.

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/SQLData.jsp?IndexNo=111917-2009&...

I really don't understand why Wiki does not publish all filings as I do for my litigation:

http://forum.creditcourt.com/cgi-bin/discus/discus.pl

"The rule on Wikipedia is that anything on the site has to have been published somewhere else first and that this source has to be "reliable" ie newspapers, journals or books - not blogs or personal websites."

Well, that's lame. In fact, you'll rarely find the TRUTH about anything IMPORTANT in what Wiki considers "reliable" sources.

Yes, there are exceptions and occasionally a main stream reporter will break a story and do some real reporting, but the CORPORATE and GOVERNMENT controlled media is certainly not a RELIABLE source anymore.

I use Wiki extensively for my research on plants, building, people -- things that aren't controversial. When it comes to wars, politics, big pharma, etc., Wiki is obviously NOT the place to go to.

In this lawsuit, Wiki relied on the NYT.

And I'd like to know what REALLY happened and whether the good doctors' allegations are correct.

It's really odd to have an organization like Wiki keep the truth from their readers.

You can look up the doctors' disciplinary records for yourself here:

https://www.idfpr.com/DPR/licenselookup/default.asp

Their ID numbers are 036074384 and 036064669

Thanks, I looked it up:

"Agreed to cease and desist using the designation "M.D." in addition to the appropriate "D.O." title. He received a degree as a doctor of medicine, but was never properly licensed to use the title "M.D." in Illinois. $5000 FINE DUE AND PAID"

So what does this mean? They received degrees as DOCTORS of MEDICINE, but were never properly licensed in IL.

Does this mean they're not doctors? Their medical degrees are void?

Obviously, that's not an appropriate topic to discuss here, but it just goes to show how easy it is to slander people by NOT telling the whole story.

I read the NYT article and i read their complaint. I'd sure like to know the TRUTH.

I can imagine what people write about me once I've been imprisoned for publishing the TRUTH. I suspect most writers will simply skip those last 4 words.

Well, I'll post what I can find about this Wiki suit at my blog (which of course isn't credible because I'm not writing for the NYT), and maybe someone with inside knowledge will clue me in and most important, provide the court filings and discovery responses.

And I really wish there was legislation requiring publishers to post the statements of people who feel that they have been defamed.

There should be no need for LAWSUITS -- instead require that statements by people who'd otherwise sue be prominently displayed, along with a LINK to their website with whatever supporting documents they wish to provide.