Lawyer Wants Wikipedia Editor's Identity Revealed

Appeals court will examine the anonymous speech part of a new D.C. law.

, The National Law Journal

   | 3 Comments

In the latest case to test the limits of a District of Columbia law that shields protected speech from litigation, an anonymous Wikipedia editor is fighting an attempt by attorney Susan Burke to unmask his identity.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Gregory Kohs

    Researchers at Wikipediocracy have unmasked one of the editors who had been tormenting Susan Burke on Wikipedia. The story is here: http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/06/09/attorney-or-ambulance-chaser-susan-burke-vs-wikipedia/

  • jvc

    In my opinion, there's nothing subtle about this issue as the history of this attorney's Wikipedia article, which anyone can view unless Wikipedia has erased some things it doesn't want others to see, demonstrates.

    People were clearly being paid to push the agenda of Blackwater, a corporation Ms. Burke has sued, and ban anyone who tried to make the Susan L. Burke article even semi-objective.

    Despite claiming to be a non-profit that's product any member of the public can use to express their right to free speech, Wikipedia is actually controlled by cabals of so-called senior editors that exempt themselves from Wikipedia's rules and harass, cyber-stalk, and ban anyone they don't like.

    There's evidence that many of these so-called senior editors, who are always anonymous, are controlled by corporate interests. If Wikipedia didn't allow corporations to market themselves on the site, it would collapse as its content is not useful to anyone doing serious research about a subject.

    Wikipedia has also been the subject of major audits from top-5 accounting firms suggesting that its owners have some explaining to do. For example, it appears to bring in more than 40 million dollars a year yet only needs to spend 4-5 million dollars a year (that's a generous estimate) maintaining the site. It's not entirely clear to me or others where the other $35,000,000 goes.

    Unfortunately, Google and Amazon have strong business ties to Wikipedia. If that were not the case it would have collapsed long ago.

    Hopefully, Ms. Burke's case will help force Wikipedia to either clean up its act and quit serving as a mouth-piece for corporate interests or declare itself a for-profit entity, which it presently is for all practical purposes.

  • JW

    Wow, tough case. Sympathetic plaintiff fighting Blackwater, and possibly a Blackwater-supporter on Wikipedia. Some wikipedia editors do have an agenda and will keep going as long as they can. Good reason not to rely solely on it as a source for info.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202618385256

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.