Comments on: Wikiality and the media http://overlawyered.com/2007/02/wikiality-and-the-media/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wikiality-and-the-media Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sun, 27 May 2012 05:00:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Bonnie http://overlawyered.com/2007/02/wikiality-and-the-media/comment-page-1/#comment-5856 Bonnie Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:05:02 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4514#comment-5856 So why not embarass the reporter? on the Wikipedia site? Laziness should not be protected. Sheesh! So why not embarass the reporter? on the Wikipedia site?

Laziness should not be protected.

Sheesh!

]]> By: Walter Olson http://overlawyered.com/2007/02/wikiality-and-the-media/comment-page-1/#comment-5855 Walter Olson Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:42:12 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4514#comment-5855 It's also worth noting that on a <a href="http://www.tortdeform.com/" rel="nofollow">certain website</a> launched last year which labors mightily to defend the American plaintiff's bar in all its works and ways, and which Ted sometimes rebuts in this space, the list of 30-odd official guest contributors includes "<a href="http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2004/09/jean_greg_winters.html" rel="nofollow">Jean and Greg Winters</a>", whose biographical description currently reads, in its entirety, "Civil Justice Wikipedia Editors". No doubt there are equally committed advocates posting edits from a contrasting perspective. That it all adds up to a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view" rel="nofollow">neutral point of view</a>" on litigation controversies is something I much doubt, based on the contents of the pages I occasionally visit. It’s also worth noting that on a certain website launched last year which labors mightily to defend the American plaintiff’s bar in all its works and ways, and which Ted sometimes rebuts in this space, the list of 30-odd official guest contributors includes “Jean and Greg Winters“, whose biographical description currently reads, in its entirety, “Civil Justice Wikipedia Editors”.

No doubt there are equally committed advocates posting edits from a contrasting perspective. That it all adds up to a “neutral point of view” on litigation controversies is something I much doubt, based on the contents of the pages I occasionally visit.

]]>