[tioga]

wiki needs to take responsibility for this, too.

[z3n]

"wiki needs to take responsibility for this, too."

I wholeheartedly disagree! Everyone knows that wikipedia is openly edited information.
Aside from that, all changes are moderated by others, and the false information was removed as it should have been.
What is more, it is wikipedia's tracking of editing, including IP addresses, that has made it transparent.

Legally speaking, Wikipedia is a "Service Provider". They are not a publisher. The content on the site is authored by participants, which makes wikipedia a conduit.

Should freerepublic get sued because of idiot comments on here?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

wiki needs to take responsibility for this, too.

I yield to no one in my disgust over the suppression of truth in this case, nor in my enthusiasm for suing the socks off of the perpetrators. Nor do I think of Wikipedia as any better than any other part of "the MSM."

But it has to be said that in this case Wikipedia had a disclaimer next to the phony Rush quote, noting that it had been challenged. That's important because it means that anyone who propagated that phony quote was pretty much saying that they didn't care whether it was true or not. That is, that they are guilty of "actual malice," and are wide open to a libel suit.

So it probably isn't the best idea to go after Wiki on this . . .