Nathan de Vries [12.12.05 07:39 PM]

Personally, I would remove the link to the website. Let people find it for themselves, because it's basically just a blatent revenue maker.

Perhaps you should link to the original discussion page on Wikipedia, which clearly shows Jennifer Monroe's evasiveness.

  Karl Fogel [12.12.05 09:23 PM]

Wikipedia paid no one to create content, charged no one to receive content, and prominently notified readers of the means by which articles were written. So this suit can't go anywhere, right?

-Karl, wishing he were a lawyer

  Jeroen Wenting [12.12.05 10:46 PM]

The last option (greedy lawyers trying to find a new way to make a quick buck) seems the most likely reason.
After all, it's the reason for most such lawsuits.

Karl, in the US legal system you never know. Wikipedia also lacks the funds to cause judges and jurors favourable to them to judge their case...

  gnat [12.13.05 12:14 AM]

I haven't taken down the link, but I've added a note explaining that it's probably an AdSense scam. It's left to the discretion of the reader (and whether they have Firefox's AdBlocker installed--I never realized there were ads on the page when I posted the link originally!) to decide whether or not to visit.

  Ben Yates [12.13.05 07:39 PM]

I actually called the number on the page and talked to someone who claimed the organization had nothing to do with QuakeAID -- the P.O. box was the same, he said, because they had the same ISP. (???)

He also made several other questionable statements and gratuitous sarcastic swipes -- Summary of the conversation.

  Anonymous [12.14.05 08:15 AM]

We have nothing to do with QuakeAID, although we have received a complaint from that registered charity. I would point out that this website is a secondary publisher of defamatory information, published by Wikipedia; information that has been disputed by QuakeAID, and yet, despite their best endeavors, management of WikiPedia refuse to remove and or correct. Suffice to say, this type of behavor is the reason our lawsuit should go forward. No one from WikiPedia has ever contacted QuakeAID to verify any of the untrue statements they publish; i.e. that Baou, Inc. is its parent company, etc., and yet they continue to publish this defamatory untrue information.

As to the comment regarding an Ad Scam, I see that there are ads on this website. Does that mean that since we are discussing this subject that there is an ad scam going on here?

Oh yeah, and if you do a search, you will see that Baou, Inc., who is the Tucows reseller who provided us with our domain name registration and hosting, uses their address on ALL domain names it registers. All clients agree to use its PO Box because ALL clients do not wish to receive junk mail. ALL mail sent to that address will be summarily disposed for us. It's part of the service. We only want email and fax communications. Junk mail goes where it's supposed to be. In the bin. Big conspiracy there eh?

  WikiPediaClassAction [12.14.05 08:16 AM]

We have nothing to do with QuakeAID, although we have received a complaint from that registered charity. I would point out that this website is a secondary publisher of defamatory information, published by Wikipedia; information that has been disputed by QuakeAID, and yet, despite their best endeavors, management of WikiPedia refuse to remove and or correct. Suffice to say, this type of behavor is the reason our lawsuit should go forward. No one from WikiPedia has ever contacted QuakeAID to verify any of the untrue statements they publish; i.e. that Baou, Inc. is its parent company, etc., and yet they continue to publish this defamatory untrue information.

As to the comment regarding an Ad Scam, I see that there are ads on this website. Does that mean that since we are discussing this subject that there is an ad scam going on here?

Oh yeah, and if you do a search, you will see that Baou, Inc., who is the Tucows reseller who provided us with our domain name registration and hosting, uses their address on ALL domain names it registers. All clients agree to use its PO Box because ALL clients do not wish to receive junk mail. ALL mail sent to that address will be summarily disposed for us. It's part of the service. We only want email and fax communications. Junk mail goes where it's supposed to be. In the bin. Big conspiracy there eh?

  Anonymous [12.14.05 01:28 PM]

Note that the page does not mention a law firm. Either there is none, or for some reason, it prefers to remain anonymous (like this comment).

  WikiPediaClassAction [12.14.05 04:23 PM]

Lawyers put their names on lawsuits. JIMBO Wales will know who they are when he receives his Writ. Other Claimants already know. You and the other spectators are just that, spectators.

  Nathan de Vries [12.14.05 08:01 PM]

Posted by WikiPediaClassAction:

As to the comment regarding an Ad Scam, I see that there are ads on this website. Does that mean that since we are discussing this subject that there is an ad scam going on here?

That's an absurd comparison. O'Reilly provides content to users for free, and gathers revenue by using targeted advertisements. In case you hadn't noticed, this is the norm with content-provider style websites.

Your website on the other hand is trying to drum up support in a class-action lawsuit against Wikipedia.

You're not in anyway related to Michael Buffington are you? I notice Asbestos ads are quite a common occurance in your neck of the woods.

  WikiPediaClassAction [12.15.05 12:06 PM]

Perhaps that's true, but the point is that no one is forced to click on the ads. So it must be something they were interested in or otherwise, they could have gotten back to their porn quite easily. Whilst on the subject of porn did you know that Wikipedia was founded with Porn money?

http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20683

  Kelly [12.20.05 01:45 PM]

"Whilst on the subject of porn did you know that Wikipedia was founded with Porn money?"

You say that like it's a bad thing.

  Geoff Green [12.20.05 01:48 PM]

"Lawyers put their names on lawsuits. JIMBO Wales will know who they are when he receives his Writ. Other Claimants already know. You and the other spectators are just that, spectators."



This is enough to lead me to believe that this writer, at least, is not a lawyer. "Receives his Writ"? That's not the terminology you would use (at least in the US) to describe someone being served with a complaint as part of a lawsuit. Also, "claimant"? They're called plaintiffs.

  Anonymous [12.20.05 03:57 PM]

This is a scam. A real law firm, even a low-rent one, wouldn't remain anonymous while publicly soliciting people to join in a class action suit. I highly recommend that you pull the link to the web page from your posting, since you're giving them exactly the publicity they're fishing for (and hoping that other blogs will pick up your posting).

  Interested Bystander [12.20.05 05:08 PM]

Wow. The post above, if in fact from the lawsuit folks, says a lot about their bona fides all by itself. And they sure do know a great deal about QAid for a supposedly unrelated party.

  maerisza sabrael [02.15.06 11:17 PM]

Hello, I am a young artist being stalked and harassed. Wikipedia ..or the administrators at Wikipedia posted a false bio about me and copied my copyrighted website and my copyrighted material. They are calling titles of my copyrighted songs by different names.
they are not allowed to copy websites.
I am contacting a lawyer in D.C that I dated and he is a lawyer who was appointed to some positions in the government.
We are going to look into what I can do to deal with copyright infrigment and libel.

  Ron S. [06.23.06 12:23 AM]

I don't know about the law suit, but I am positive that it will happen again and again. Wikipedia is a clear case of the inmates talking over the asylum! It is run by organized volunteer super-nerds as though they were feudal lords! Just go on the site and see the nasty goings on for yourself. And they are at it twenty-four hours a day with a passion!

Whoever prevails in any disputes about what is indeed "fact" gets to create or rewrite history as though it were true regardless of it is or not. Whoever can gather the most consensus wins. This is effectively accomplished by using a number of fictitious "user names" called "sockpuppets," or by belonging to or organizing complicated alliances!

If they do not like what you say, it's deleted.

If you restore it, they remove it again.

Restore it again and they remove it again and so forth until a volunteer "administrator blocks you from further edits. Usually the administrator is elected and beholding to those you are opposing so if you do not belong to any click or manufacture your own "fiefdom" you are lost!

That would be okay if they were calling themselves a Blog site, but they are calling themselves an "encyclopedia" even though one does not need any particular education, experience, expertise in any field, or writing skills to be an "editor". Of course that is a train wreck just waiting to happen, especially when someone has an axe to grind against another person or organization and they libel them.

Making matters worse, there are many mirror sites like "Answers.com" that cite these "articles" because anyone is free to copy and paste and use any content found on the site as long as they reference (and simultaneously promote Wikipedia while doing it). Therefore anyone with a PC can create or completely change the truth to suit themselves -even libel someone -- on Wikipedia, and then anyone with a PC can mirror the articles in other sites calling themselves dictionaries, encyclopedias and further this perversion of the true and facts.

That is ridiculous, like Wikipedia itself. All the other sites that carry any Wikipedia libelous content should be included in future class action suits, as well!

  lilflwr [06.14.07 12:41 AM]

I'm interested.