Jake wrote:He's probably just being immodest by not pointing it out himself, but I think this underscores the value of having someone like Mr. Vigilant participating on the site (despite his occasional abrasiveness) - he predicted this very argument as being central to the WMF's case almost immediately, in this post. I, for one, wouldn't have even thought of that, though of course that may be because I've never been personally involved in a lawsuit. (At least not one that I can recall, anyway.)
However, this Cause of Action thing is also disturbing, because the concept of "reputational damage" has never been something that can be easily quantified to the extent that someone could say, "this false Wikipedia edit from a few years ago reduced my annual income by $50,000," or some such - even though it's quite possible that a single Wikipedia edit could do just that, or worse. If the WMF is successful at raising the Cause of Action standard for lawsuits against it so that plaintiffs have to specify, in detail, how the claim of reputational damage has translated into material harm and personal/business loss, obviously that adds a whole lotta new chilling effect to an already-problematic process (i.e., one which I would say is already heavily tilted against plaintiffs). Who knows, this case could even be used as a precedent to dismiss future cases in which the plaintiffs fail to provide spreadsheets or other documentation on how their clients are treating them or how their sales are going.
It makes a lot clear about your WO you see Mr.Vigilant as a participant with any value, Somey.
And for the rest, I am of course not a English native speaker. So how am I to correct you, but do you know what "deformation" means? Hurting someones reputation for instance, Somey? And how much is that worth under a CC licence?
Well, Somey, that is exacte where this law cause is about, and the answers up to the judge and my god what can you write a lot of bullshit down.