By framing the material as 'defamatory facts,' the court effectively treats Wikipedia as a publisher rather than a neutral host. If this logic spreads, open‑editing models may face higher liability, prompting heavier moderation and chilling volunteer contributions.
— A shift in intermediary liability for encyclopedic platforms would reshape the open‑knowledge ecosystem and raise compliance costs for non‑profits.
David Rose
2025.09.08
66% relevant
A UK (Northern Ireland) High Court found Tattle Life’s founder liable for defamation/harassment and said he 'peddled untruths for profit,' functionally treating the site’s operator as responsible for user content; similar to courts imposing publisher-like duties on platforms.
Mike Solana
2025.08.27
85% relevant
By labeling the content 'defamatory facts' and ordering removal, the court effectively treats Wikipedia as a publisher with liability for user‑editable material rather than as a neutral host, aligning with this idea’s concern.
Visakan Veerasamy
2025.08.15
100% relevant
The article states the court 'rules that wikipedia published defamatory claims masquerading as fact.'