Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Grebner files libel suit over Wikipedia edits

By Ed Brayton | 07.08.09 | 12:18 am

district-10-commissioner-mark-grebnerLongtime Ingham County Commissioner and Michigan political consultant Mark Grebner has filed a defamation lawsuit in Ingham County Circuit Court against three men for allegedly editing false and defamatory information into his biographical entry on Wikipedia.

The three defendants are Dennis Lennox, a Central Michigan University student who received a great deal of attention over the last few years for a string of politically-charged incidents on that campus and was elected Cheboygan County drain commissioner last year; Bradley Dennis, a member of the Michigan State University College Republicans who ran an unsuccessful campaign against Grebner for the Ingham County Commission last fall; and MSU sophomore Anthony Giammarinaro.

The three are accused of editing Grebner’s Wikipedia entry to include information that Grebner, a Democrat, argues is false and libelous. But the nature of the specific edits varies widely. Dennis Lennox is accused of accessing Grebner’s Wikipedia entry on Aug. 5, 2008, and inserting the following into the entry:

Mark Grebner (born 1952) is a homosexual American politician and political consultant from the state of Michigan.

Bradley Dennis is accused of inserting a more politically relevant but, according to Grebner, false statement on Oct. 24, 2008:

Going into the 2008 fiscal year, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners amassed a county deficit of more than 4 million dollars. In response to the deficit, Mark Grebner commented that as a strategy to the deficit, he would like to continue to raise taxes rather then reform government. He proceeded to introduce a proposal to the 2008 ballot that proposed increasing taxes by as much as 4.4 million dollars. The controversy started when Grebner help to name the Proposal a ‘tax limitation’. Many have argued that this was a strategy by the Board to ‘trick’ the voters into a tax increase that they would otherwise never support.

Anthony Giammarinaro faces the most serious charge of all for allegedly inserting this statement into Grebner’s Wiki entry on Oct. 25, 2008:

In 1997, Grebner was convicted on three counts of sexually abusing children. His comment ‘Ok-I’m weird. Vote for me anyway.’

Giammarinaro is also accused of inserting a picture of Osama bin Laden into the entry with the caption “One of Grebner’s biggest supporters in the 2004 election.”

In all three instances, Grebner’s suit seeks compensation from the defendants in “whatever amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) that the court and/or a jury deems fair and reasonable.”

It appears that the strongest of the accusations is against Giammarinaro. American libel law requires that the defendant issue a statement they knew, or should have known, was false with reckless disregard of the truth and with the intent to defame the target.

In the case of Lennox, at least one appeals court in the United States has ruled that calling someone a homosexual is not a defamatory statement. But Bruce Sanford, a legal scholar who literally wrote the book on this subject — a law school textbook called “Libel and Privacy” — said that other courts might well view that issue differently.

Speaking of the aforementioned case Sanford told Michigan Messenger: “That could be true in Massachusetts but not be true in another state. There’s always been a difference in state laws dealing with such things. Even if it’s filed in federal court, they have to look to the common law of the state and to state court law to see whether it’s actionable or not. Another court might say that it might reasonably be capable of a defamatory statement and we’ll let a jury decide. The context matters greatly.

But the alleged insertion by Giammarinaro, claiming that Grebner had been convicted of child molestation in 1997, clearly falls under the definition of libel. “That’s either an accurate statement or not,” Sanford said. “If it’s inaccurate, it’s certainly capable of a defamatory meaning so it easily falls within libel law.”

Sanford was less convinced by the accusation against Giammarinaro concerning the picture of Osama bin Laden. “I think people would see that as a satire or a tasteless joke,” said Sanford. “I’m not sure that any kind of parody, sarcasm, any kind of humor, as long as it’s recognized as humor, is actionable. Here it’s so ridiculous that I don’t think it could be mistaken for a factual statement. Osama bin Laden has not, after all, been supporting particular American politicians.”

The key will be proving that these statements came from these particular individuals. The defendants were identified by IP addresses used to edit Grebner’s Wikipedia entry, which is logged by the website. In the case of Lennox, Grebner narrowed down the IP address to about 40 users in the small town in which he lives and concluded that Lennox was the only one in that small group with any incentive to attack him.

In the cases of Dennis and Giammarinaro, the evidence is considerably more clear. Both are MSU students and both IP addresses from which those edits were made trace to South Case Hall, where they both lived during the school year. Grebner had to issue a subpoena to MSU to get the university to release the identity of the person using the IP address at that time and they positively identified Dennis and Giammarinaro.

Michigan Messenger spoke with Jason Bryans, a former MSU computer tech consultant, who explained that when each MSU student registers to access the university’s network, their account is matched up with a unique code called a MAC address that is different for each computer — and even different for each computer’s particularly way of accessing the network as the MAC address for a given computer’s wireless networking apparatus is different than the MAC address for that computer’s ethernet connector.

The IP address is not static for each user, but the network logs which IP address is assigned to which user’s computer at any given time. Because the IP address and time of access were logged by Wikipedia, that information was then cross checked against the network logs and it was determined by the university that the computers using those particular IP addresses at those particular times belonged to Dennis and Giammarinaro.

The suit was filed on May 14 but the defendants are just now being served with the papers. All three defendants were contacted for this story. Dennis Lennox replied that since he did not have a copy of the complaint he could not comment at this time, but he did say that he did not know the other two defendants in the case. Anthony Giammarinaro replied via his Facebook account and simply said, “No comment.” Bradley Dennis did not reply to inquiries by press time.

Comments

  • thekohser

    While it would seem that the three defendants are probably guilty, it surely would be nice if the Wikimedia Foundation discovered the concept of professional knowledge management and implemented changes to editing access policies, such that Wikipedia could no longer be used as the world's largest online defamation platform, as it is currently used, each and every day.

    At some point, some wealthy litigant is going to say “enough is enough” and challenge the WMF's immunity under Section 230 of the CDA with a successful “attractive nuisance” counter-argument.

  • http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

    Ed, you do a fairly good job of extricating the facts here, but I think the story and you miss the larger points. Is it newsworthy that Grebner is going after three students or former students for some wiki entries during the middle of a political campaign that Grebner later won? Maybe I should sue Michigan Liberal for saying that I – yes, he Eric Baerren said it – “fu** pigs.” I'll grant you that it may be that there is some interest in why Grebner would do this, at least the way he has – by waiting two months to serve process and nearly a year after the events? Is he just bored in the off-year? Run out of legitimate lawsuits against the Parties for trying to keep voter files secret? The biggest missing thing is questions to Grebner – I'd have at least half a dozen with why being the lead. I find that odd since I can only imagine that your lead for the story was probably Grebner himself sending you a press release or the lawsuit (no doubt after no other media outlet would bite), unless I'm wrong and you do a beat at the Ingham County Court house and ran across this case.

    Except for the child-molestation part, it seems to me to be frivolous, “SLAPP” litigation, designed to chill speech. At least a solid case can be made for the attack on Grebner's political opponent in last year's County Commission race. That's the most outrageous abuse of process I've seen since … BAMN.

    That is – a lawsuit for libel against your opponent for saying you're a tax hiker? Come on. That's so much into the realm of opinion or mixed opinion/fact, and so relevant to the election that Grebner is at the apex of his public-figureness. He'd have to prove actual malice or recklessness – the quote itself hardly seems reckless. Plus, Grebner won his race handily – where's the damage?

    The “homosexual” thing is marginally more interesting legally on the question of damage, as you note, but 1) was Grebner damaged? Even if being labeled homosexual is damaging in some contexts, Grebner's career specifically is an unlikely context for such damage and certainly I didn't even know of the accusation until this article, so its unlikely the damage comes from Lennox. Grebner is more likely to experience that type of damage from this very lawsuit's driving of the publicity. That is – who were the readers of this statement – and how many people did they transmit to this allegedly false knowledge. That, I think, is a much harder thing for Grebner to prove. Then that raises 2) Grebner opens himself up to the possibility of truth as a defense, so he'll have to answer interesting deposition questions, at the least.

    As to the Giammarinaro punk, if Grebner had limited his lawsuit to him, I wouldn't think it frivolous (though probably a waste of Grebner's time and likely to backfire by drawing attention to the matter). Going after a guy who says you've been convicted of something you haven't – particularly a sex-crime – seems just and might be worth it just to discourage future similar behavior. But lumping him in with others who haven't really committed libel should result in bar complaints against the lawyers bold enough to sign the complaints and have them served. Perhaps that is Grebner's strategy here – lumping them together?

    • ebrayton

      I certainly agree with you that the strongest of the three charges is against Giammarinaro. If I was a betting man — and I am — I would wager that the allegations against Dennis Lennox and Bradley Dennis will be dismissed before the case goes to trial. But I would not go so far as to claim that those allegations are frivolous. As Bruce Sanford told me and I cited in the article, the question of whether calling someone a homosexual amounts to libel has a different answer from court to court. As for what Bradley Dennis said, I just don't know enough about Grebner's record (hell, I know virtually nothing about Grebner's record) to know whether one could make a plausible case that the claim was patently false or not. But the bar for calling a case frivolous is pretty high and the bar for sanctioning an attorney is even higher, so I doubt either of those is likely to happen.

      As for why he lumped the three of them together, I think it's because he is convinced that their efforts were coordinated and that's the kind of thing that could well come out in discovery. Emails and phone records could be subject to subpoena and that might well reveal that this was planned together. Lennox told me he doesn't know the other two defendants at all, which I found rather surprising given the similar circles they run in. Should it turn out in discovery that they do know each other and their efforts were coordinated and tied to the organizations that they belong to, that's a much bigger story and I'm curious to see if that ends up being the case.

  • thekohser

    I simply want to dissuade “chetlyzarko” of the imagination that this is a small, local, non-notable legal case. It is not. Many of us who monitor the “free culture” movement and its insistence on open publication of unaccountable spittle via Web 2.0 are very much interested in the possible precedents that may (finally) be established with this case.

  • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

    What makes my suspicious of Grebner's motives is that he has avoided the simplest (and least expensive) recourse: Using the Wikipedia mechanisms to maintain correct information.
    Take a look at the page history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_…

    Even inexperienced users can see the obvious trail of changes between contributors like Kestenbaum and 'anonymous' ones like 35.11.130.42. Note that changes were modified in a matter of minutes in some cases.

    Grebner could have put a label on the page noting disputes with facts. He could have petitioned for a lock-out of anonymous users. He could have locked the page entirely on the grounds that he was in a political campaign, which has been done for several candidates. Take a look at the discussion tab for the page – not one word; the childish 'graffiti' (Osama as biggest contributor) aside, if there was a real dispute over facts, it should have been carried out here, not just flat denials and edits. There are countless resources available, users who delight in investigation and arrival at a consensual truth of matters like this.

    If Grebner and his allies want to help reach the goal of providing the most accurate and objective information, then they should use the mechanisms of the site to do so. If they don't like Wikipedia and it's role as a community resource, then they should simply ignore it, as they would any number of other websites and blogs that may say things that they disagree with. Adding yet another frivilous lawsuit to our court system to attack yet another public resource is a waste of our communities' time and resources.

    thekohser makes an excellent point; the rich and powerful have their avenues of defamation and message control, or “professional knowledge management” as tk put it. CNN and FOX News and the New York Times have doors open to the likes of Ken Lay and Dick Cheney and John Yu that have no relation to their veracity or proven expertise. A few words on any of them can destroy lives in moments across the globe. And as tk notes, the power of these avenues have and will continue to be jealously guarded by those who can take advantage of them.

    When a source of independent information arises that can compete with the enforced messages of corporate and political powers, it will only be a matter of time before some “wealthy litigant” will attempt to use their wealth to attack and destroy it.

    It's time to stop controlling information and start sharing it.

  • JonAwbrey

    KellyLogan's comment is so chock full of naive statements that I can hardly begin to address them all. I suggest that he/she begin his/her education on this and many other issues at The Wikipedia Review.

    • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

      I'm sorry you find my opinions naiive. I'm more sorry that you don't seem to have any actual facts or ideas to dispute anything I say. Perhaps if you take some more time to study the subject and less time chatting on whine-blogs like the Review, you'll have something more concrete to say.

      • JonAwbrey

        ¤ sigh ¤

        • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

          From the articles noting the ways to “destroy Wikipedia” to the fawning devotion to Rev. Moon's New World Encyclopedia, I have to say that 'education' is not the word I would use to describe the process of reading the TWR.

          • JonAwbrey

            The Wkipedia Review samples pretty much the same population of people and opinions as you find on Wikipedia itself — with perhaps no more than the slightest bias toward independent thinkers. If I had my druthers, I would probably dis-invite the lyin's share of the Disputed Identity Powdered Instant Softdrink imbibers among them, but I'm not a global moderator — only a mod for the Meta-Discussion Forum — so the pressure of my peerage is limited.

            At any rate, one thing you might learn from sampling the archives or — heaven help you — dipping into the discussions at Da Revue is just how many times all the same things have been said on both sides. Hence, the measure of my exasperation.

            That, and I'm really overdue for vacation right about now.

          • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

            Thanks for the extra info Jon, I'll take a look again when I get the chance, and hope you get that vacation soon! :^)

  • Somey

    @KellyLogan: In other words, Grebner should have simply accepted his “obligation” to monitor his Wikipedia article, which he did not ask for or probably even want, every minute of every day for the rest of his life, without complaint, and if necessary become fully inculcated into the idiosyncratic and disturbingly cult-like administrative subculture of Wikipedia to try to avoid similar future situations? Situations which, I might add, Wikipedia could easily prevent, for everyone, by simply turning on a “feature” they told people they'd turn on two years ago?

    Nice.

    Maybe it's time to stop posting libelous Google-juiced crap about people, and start being responsible adults.

    • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

      Good point Somey, I'm not saying that someone is obligated to review and monitor information about them everywhere. What I am saying is that if you don't like Wikipedia, don't contribute to or use it.
      And more to the point, the system worked. The 'graffiti' was removed and it is obvious to anyone who has done the source checking they should do on *any* web data what was valid and what was not. So what was the real harm that was done?
      Wikipedia is a community data pool. If you don't want to be part of the community, stay out of the pool. It's just that simple. There are rules for using the pool, and if you think someone is breaking them, your first action should not be to sue the city to keep out the 'undesireables', your first action should be to talk to the lifeguards sitting right there, ready to help you.

  • thekohser

    Agree with Somey and JonAwbrey. Kelly Logan is way off-base from the real world, in that not everybody lives in their mom's basement and has time to “participate” in the “knowledge” that is Wikipedia. Kelly also misrepresents my position, but maybe that was subtle sarcasm, I don't know. I can't tell.

    • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

      And again with the insults. Funny how those who seem to have no 'factual' basis for their opinions always have nasty little remarks to throw around.

      Would it really help the discussion for me to accuse you all of having the time “living in your mom's basement” to write long diatribes of your opinion on a local newspaper blog?

      Perhaps some of us aren't paid to “monitor” and attack vulnerable public works for the “wealthy litigants” you seem so fond of. Some of us are willing to take the time out of our lives and businesses because we believe it is important that everyone have access to information to better their lives. I know that those of you who are paid to control information often have trouble understanding why someone would want to help people for free, and of course it's natural to take an aggressive stance against someone who threatens your paycheck, so I forgive you and your friends for your zeal.

      But please, if you want to increase information for everyone, try doing it by talking, not insulting.

      • thekohser

        Kelly, I run a website dedicated to free delivery of information to people, to better their lives. It's called MyWikiBiz. I am also a founding director of a Florida non-profit called the Internet Review Corporation, which posts communications about collaborative websites, free culture, and Web 2.0 on a blog at Akahele.org. I am not paid by anyone to control information. I think Wikipedia was a really great idea, but it is currently led by unprofessional, irresponsible people. I suspect you are still too deep into the “early infatuation” phase to realize this, and that makes me feel sorry for you. You're smart, though — so I'm quite confident that you will one day discover how you have been used by a small group of people to enrich their wallets, without you even realizing it.

        • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

          I think what you mean to say is that you run a website that is not just a competitor to Wikipedia, but that “earns money from Google AdSense ads placed within a few dozen Directory space articles, plus the footer of nearly every MyWikiBiz page.” Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong, or mis-representing the truth, it just means that you have a firm and ongoing motive for doing so, and it would have been a more honest disclosure to make this clear from the start.

          The fact that you once again have to try to bully me and insult me by attempting to frame any response I have as “a creative way to dismiss and/or suppress” your ideas also doesn't mean that you know they are wrong or dis-informative, but it does indicate that you don't think they can stand up to scrutiny on their own without your belligerence to support them.

          Maybe you're just a naturally hostile guy, or have been fighting a hard fight against Wikipedia; either way, trying to take it out on me does not help your case, and it certainly doesn't give me much motive to try to understand your perspective.

          That aside, your study was helpful in understanding what you are saying. Thank you for pointing that out. After looking it over, I can say that I find little to be shocked or concerned about. In a country where newspapers read by millions report falsely that Saddam Hussein threw out weapons inspectors ( http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1638 ) and help lead this country into a multi-trillion dollar war at the costs of hundreds of thousands of lives, I'm simply not very moved by someone posting “LALALALALaLAALLALALLLAAHEHREF” or “Joe Biden is t3h pwnz0rz!!!! “on Joe Biden's Wikipedia entry.

          Are there downsides to a site like Wikipedia? Of course, just as there are with corporate news or independent publishing. The key is to maintain a reasonable perspective on those downsides and place them into a realistic context. It also helps if you can look at other people's perspectives and consider them without needing to attack or demean them.

          • thekohser

            Kelly, have you ever stopped to think that, since it's not just me, maybe YOU are the cause of several people here bullying and insulting you? Maybe there is something smug about how you illogically and ineffectually dismiss other intelligent people's arguments as worthless, that leaves them with little recourse but to despise your very being, without having even ever met you.

            I guess you want me to apologize for earning about $180 a year from Google AdSense on my site, to help pay for the $240 in annual server/hosting fees that make the site possible for the thousands of unique visitors each week to enjoy? Oh, and… any editor on MyWikiBiz is welcome to sell their own products, proffer their own services, and — yes — even embed their own Google AdSense ads. So, I very literally give information and money to my editing community. Wikipedia gives information while Jimbo and Sue and gang keep all the money.

            Let me educate you, if you're willing to take off your rose-colored glasses and listen for a minute.

            In the 2007-08 fiscal year, the Wikimedia Foundation spent less than 35% of what they SAID they would spend on “Technology”. Guess how much they spent of what they said they would spend on executive salaries?

            99.41%

            So, it would appear that paying the executives was a more pressing priority than server racks and bandwidth.

            You must agree that “Program Service Accomplishments” are what a dutiful auditor should be looking at, within any charity. At the Wikimedia Foundation, they account for only 31.6% of the total revenues of the organization.

            Let's compare:

            REAL CHARITIES:

            * American Red Cross spent 103.7% of revenues on program services.
            * Breast Cancer Research Foundation spent 83.4% of revenues on program services.
            * Doctors Without Borders spent 82.8% of revenues on program services.
            * United Way of America spent 80.5% of revenues on program services.

            FAKE CHARITIES:

            * Electronic Frontier Foundation spent 44.2% of revenues on program services.
            * Wikimedia Foundation spent 31.6% of revenues on program services.
            * Deputy Sheriffs' Fraternal Organization (the folks who pay tele-centers to call you at dinner time for donations by phone, and who should not be confused with the American Deputy Sheriffs Association, which was forced to fold after breaking the law and spending 0.2% on services benefiting deputies) spent 15.6% of revenues on program services.
            * Wishing Well Foundation spent 13.2% of revenues on program services, even after rebuke by the New York Times.

            Now, really. Based on this important statistic alone, with which category of “charity” is the Wikimedia Foundation associating itself — the good guys or the bad guys?

          • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

            I'm sorry Greg, I'm not seeing where I have dismissed other people's arguments, or where “several people” have tried to bully me. I have disagreed, and I have asked for people to back up absolute statements with some kind of facts, and in my first comment you could make a case that I misused your comment about information management to point out a larger issue beyond its original context, but when did I dismiss you?

            Somey was hardly wearing kid gloves in his comments, but he went after my *ideas* not me, and he did so by providing information to dispute them and by backing up his ideas with useful information.

            If you want to talk about this case, let's talk about this case. If you want to talk about the problem you have with me, talk about you and me. I don't think anyone else here needs you to try to speak for them.

            Now, as for your request that instead of looking at how Wikipedia's rules and their application affected this case, but instead make some summary judgement of Wikipedia's 'goodness' or 'badness' “(b)ased on this important statistic alone,” well it speaks for itself, doesn't it? Apart from the Manichaen good/bad guy issue, judging a charity based solely on a comparison of their received funding for a particular year to their program service outlays is not, and shouldn't be, a standard measure. Charities in general do not have stable sources and some keep large amounts of funds in reserve so they can continue to provide services in dry times. Charities like EFF may also be event-driven, and need to keep funds in reserve to have ready to address issues. If you look at a site like Charity Navigator, you'll see one way to more realistically evaluate a charity, though theirs is not the only method. Here's an example: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=s…

            By looking at the *efficiency* of funds used, you get a more objective measure of how well the money they use is being spent. How high are administrative (for example executive salaries) expenses compared to program expenses, for example? You'll see that EFF actually rates very highly on this scale, though if you look up the Wikimedia Foundation you will see that, as you noted, their admin expenses do seem rather high (they only get three out of four stars).

            I did not dismiss your opinion when I noted you are trying to make money off of your site, what I pointed out was that if you are going to present running a Wiki site as a credential as you did, you should also disclose that the site is competitive with Wikipedia and that it provides an underlying profit motive for your opinions.

          • http://www.GregoryKohs.com Gregory Kohs

            Note, Charity Navigator now rates the Wikimedia Foundation with 2 out of 4 stars, in Organization Efficiency. The problem seems to be getting worse, not better, if you look at the histogram of year-by-year ratios.

  • http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

    thekosher, Grebner is doing this for his own personal political reasons and gain, as the author just further confirmed indirectly, not for some master precedent in the wiki publication environment. That a few students may or may not have went slightly overboard is a distraction.

    Ed, thanks for the confirmation that Grebner is on a discovery fishing expedition – his motives then are clearly frivolous and abusive, even though an actual frivolous finding is as rare as you say and unlikely. “Free association” – the other half of the First Amendment – even if it were true that these folks were somehow loosely associated, so what? Using the legal process to unearth associations is McCarthyist. They were hardly engaged in racketeering or some grand conspiracy even in the best interpretation – it's interesting to you because it would give you some wild seed of an argument to paint whole organizations (I presume college Republicans, etc.) with?

    Any evidence of connection beforehand? Probable cause so to speak justifying the Grebner fishing? You, as a reporter, could find it with a few google searches and other older investigative techniques. Maybe I'll sue Eric Baerren for the pigs fu**ing statement so I can dig around in his e-mails? I should have filed assault charges against Mark Brewer when he swiped at my camera in 2005 – imagine the discovery I could do? Would I be justified in that? There's a role for litigation in life, but there's also a time to step back.

    If I were these defendants, I'd avoid the discovery route and make Grebner prove up damages. That's what Bill Clinton should have done. Of course, the lawyers won't want to give up the good defenses they have.

    And yes, the “tax hiker = libel” claim is so abusive as to be offensive. I don't even know that it meets the clear fact test, but lets presume there's a measurable way of defining it. How's Grebner going to prove malice? And being a tax hiker is a positive to many in the Democratic party (not all, I'll admit) – just read several major blogs praising them – and that's where Greb's money mostly comes from.

    ps – Grebner's voter file litigation and FOIA work in the 90s were good uses of the courts. This is not. Mark, get some perspective and drop the case.

    • ebrayton

      Chetly Zarko wrote:

      Ed, thanks for the confirmation that Grebner is on a discovery fishing expedition – his motives then are clearly frivolous and abusive, even though an actual frivolous finding is as rare as you say and unlikely. “Free association” – the other half of the First Amendment – even if it were true that these folks were somehow loosely associated, so what? Using the legal process to unearth associations is McCarthyist. They were hardly engaged in racketeering or some grand conspiracy even in the best interpretation – it's interesting to you because it would give you some wild seed of an argument to paint whole organizations (I presume college Republicans, etc.) with?

      Any evidence of connection beforehand? Probable cause so to speak justifying the Grebner fishing? You, as a reporter, could find it with a few google searches and other older investigative techniques.

      I disagree with this (surprise, surprise). The fact is that litigation is used for discovery purposes all the time because you can get subpoenas that you can't otherwise get. And no, this is not merely about punishing anyone just for association. If, in fact, these three people did conspire to dishonestly defame a political enemy, that is both an interesting story for us and a legitimate legal and political issue for Grebner. As for whether there is evidence of such an association, stay tuned; I have a follow up planned, probably for tomorrow (but this is Thursday, so I am wrapped up most of the day with my radio show).

      Frankly, I don't think Grebner is going to get what he wants. I think the cases against Lennox and Dennis are likely to be dismissed prior to discovery. But that's up to the court to decide and it is entirely proper that it does so.

      As for whether you should sue other people for saying mean things about you, feel free. Those might make interesting stories too. And since I don't know any of the people involved in any of these controversies and have never voted for any of them or ever will, it's no skin off my nose either way.

  • EricBee

    The entire problem with your point. Chetly, is that it rests on the idea that Grebner's motivations must be straightforward. The first rule of criminal prosecution is to throw as much of the book as humanly possible and something will probably stick. Why lump all these together? Because the point isn't to necessarily hold Dennis Lennox responsible for falsely calling someone a homosexual, but to hold a Wikipedia user legally responsible for knowingly injecting false information meant to diminish someone's reputation into an environment where it is both difficult to permanently remove while allowing the responsible party to escape almost all accountability. I haven't read the actual lawsuit paperwork, but the sum total to me appears to be, “Taken together, these three separate comments form one act of libel against me.” Rather than going after Wikipedia, they're going after the individual authors. The point appears to me not to be to punish Dennis Lennox but to send a message to everyone who engages in this kind of childishness on Wikipedia that they can't hide behind its community-oriented fact checking apparatus.

  • http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

    Eric,
    I don't think the question of whether libel law has application to publishings made in the wiki environment is in dispute here. I'm not disputing it. I don't think there's much novel legal questioning about libel application to the electronic environment. On the other hand, there is a long-running American internal dispute with speech rights, public figures, and chilling speech, even if it is “childish”. Grebner is a public official. He's suing private individuals and seeking to use the court system to “send this message.” In the case of the tax criticism, the chilling effect of that is so obvious as to defy sensibility. In the case of the bin-Laden photo/endorsement, the substitution is clearly (very poor taste) satire (no rational person would believe bin-Laden endorses Grebner). In the case of the Ben Franklin photo, satire again, with no damages (Grebner, in my opinion, looks quite a bit like Franklin, and besides, I'd take likeness to Franklin as a compliment, and no reasonable person would interpret a Franklin photo as a real representation of Grebner). Grebner has a legitimate beef with the false child-molestation allegation, but I doubt he can prove damages; and the homosexual statement is marginally interesting but I'm pretty sure he can't prove damages.

    To me, it sounds like you are itching to see wiki-speech chilled. Perhaps Grebner should have had the courage to sue Wiki along with these three individuals – someone above pointed out that they may not have service provider protection for a number of reasons. Alas, Grebner knows that would bring down a brickload of lawyers on his face from a superior opponent with more financial arms and means. That'd be interesting litigation with real precedent, though.

    • EricBee

      Very nice, Chetly. Wrap yourself simultaneously in the American flag and the U.S. Constitution and spend the day criticizing Mark Grebner for trying to hold accountable people who've said inflammatory things about him with the express purpose of diminishing his public reputation. Then, when your position is criticized, you denounce your critics as enemies of free speech, and roll into your final point … which is that unless the case itself presents the possibility of an outcome that you personally find interesting that it's a waste of everyone's time and energy.

      I suppose it's already occurred to you that the point isn't to go after Wikipedia, which if successful would necessarily alter the way it works, but only those who misuse the way it functions to make baseless accusations about others. Of course you have. The problem is that the potential results aren't interesting to you, which again bring you back to your original point, which is that if the victim is highly offended by false statements made by others intended to diminish the victim's reputation, the victim has no one to blame but himself.

      I leave you by tying this to your larger, overall demand that people be given immediate, no-strings access to vast amounts of information without acknowledging the existence of a duty to use that information responsibly. This meshes well with your stated position that people should be allowed to say whatever they want about government and government officials, and that when they get something wrong it's the job of government and/or government officials to clean up the mess. Except here, you've said that when said government official wishes to clean up the mess, that there is something fundamentally wrong at work.

      • http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

        Eric,
        You assume that I must assume that the “mess” should be “cleaned” up – you assume that if there is a “mess” the “job of government” …”to clean up the mess.”

        I by all means don't see the First Amendment as something that is particularly “neat and orderly” – it was designed to protect the messy, the ugly, and especially the criticisms or “saying whatever they about government and government officials.” There's no need – no would it be positive to try – to “clean” that up. It's like nature – as beautiful as nature is, there is alot of messiness and ugliness along with it.

        This is not to say that I don't believe in boundaries. 200 years of common-law evolution has produced a reasonably good, and limited, libel law that doesn't intrude deeply into an open speech environment.

        As to open access to government information, I don't support strings because the information already belongs to the people by moral right and even if not so, who gets to define what the strings are poses a practical question. Open information acts a check and balance on the system as well, and frankly I'm surprised to see a liberal Democrat argue as you have. It's the one area I used to have in common with Democrats – but I guess power and parties evolve. The problem with “responsible use” of information is who defines “responsible,” and what does that mean – - I'd most certainly concur though that there again are limits – - individuals should be barred and punished for precisely defined irresponsible uses (libel law being), but a positive affirmative duty to use government information “responsibly” (by which you've previously argued “must provide context”, something the political process and debate is supposed to do, not necessarily the initial reporter) is again an affront to the First Amendment. There should also be limits to the types of information the government collects (before it even considers disclosing it under FOIA or open records doctiine), and certainly I agree with 90% of the exemptions in principle (though in practice governments treat them like loopholes and distort the honest intent of things like the privacy or in the case of federal FOIA national security by using it as a justification for anything under the sun or reason to expand fee charges).

        • EricBee

          I'm not going to spend time going over old ground with you, Chetly. As usual, rather than taking my real, actual position on something and addressing that, you take a few words, extrapolate that out to something you call my position, and spend time batting down straw men.

          When I refer to a mess, I'm clearly not talking about free speech in general. I'm talking about your stated position that someone should be given access to any piece of information he or she wants, which is fine, but that this access isn't accompanied by a responsibility to actually understand that information or use it responsibly. You have actually said that people should be allowed to use information whatever way they want, even if they haven't bothered to put forth basic effort to understand what it means, and when a very predictable mess is made that it's someone else's job to clean it up. For reasons known only to yourself, you keep insisting my rebuttal — that people have a personal responsibility for cleaning up their own messes, or better yet not making them by getting things right in the first place — makes me an enemy of free speech.

          What has happened here, at least according to the lawsuit, is that three people opted to not use free speech responsibly. There is no defending saying things about people that both simply factually not true and not obviously a form of satire. Calling Mark Grebner a “homosexual politician” is clearly both factually inaccurate and also not a form of political humor. Saying that he was convicted of molesting children is clearly both factually inaccurate and also not a form of political humor. Regardless of whether one or both rise to the legal bar of defamation (I'm ignoring the other allegation, because these two offer such a stark case of what I'm talking about), it was irresponsible for the people who wrote them to do so. What you're doing is defending the right of people to spread lies they know to be false under the pretense that this is preferable to no free speech, and that people who disagree with you are anti-free speech.

          If at least two the individuals had chosen to criticize him in a responsible fashion, we wouldn't today be talking about this. Instead, they apparently believed that they could hurl false smears from behind the way Wikipedia operates. Instead of criticizing these people for acting like children, however, you've chosen to criticize the victim of salacious lies.

          • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

            Former Pres. Bush's allies spread rumors in southern states that that John McCain had a bastard black child. Former Gov. Palin's allies spread rumors that her opponent was a Jew and not legally married. Cases could be made that these actions actually *affected* elections, and what happened to them? Nothing.

            The two graffiti that EricBee (not half-bee? ;^) insists on raising to a level of legal recourse did not cost Grebner his election, they didn't even last for more than a few minutes, so in what way is legal recourse justified?

            I agree that whoever made these posts did so inappropriately, and I think that action is called for, but there are so many levels of recourse before the courts that it is ridiculous to consider.

            The university is already involved; don't they have an internet use policy? Did Grebner ask for a review of their access to see if it could be cut off? Did he ask for university discipline, seeing as it usually has far more latitude than the courts do and requires less evidence? Did he talk to the students' current professors? To student counselors or advisors? To the students themselves??? Did he ask Wikipedia to lock his account for the duration of his campaign to prevent further tampering? Did he follow *any* reasonable course of action before adding using my tax dollars to add yet another law suit into our court system?

          • http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

            Speak about strawmen and twisting words. You are the master of that generally, and do it in the very response you falsely accuse me of doing it. I assert that your comment here constitutes libel as it misstates as fact my statements, although I'll accept you did so in error and accept your apology. If I'm wrong and you've correctly stated my position, please provide a citation to the statement and I'll apologize.

            You assert that I have “stated position that someone should be given access to any piece of information he or she wants…”. Where have I ever made such a statement on open records issues? I certainly concur that (certain) national security issues, law enforcement techniques, privacy issues, and a few other exemptions are more than appropriate inclusions into any FOIA or open records law or doctrine. If it doesn't fall within an exemption though, I believe and the courts currently concur, that the requestors motives and potential uses are irrelevant (except to the extent a potential use of disclosure to anyone relates to say the exemption analysis). Still, you strawman my argument, then as distraction accuse me of somehow strawmanning you.

            As to “victim Grebner”, he's hardly someone I'd perceive as a victim in the sense you portray him. And I have indeed criticized the “these people for acting like children” – I think my term for the Giarraminaro (sp) guy was “punk” (see first response by me). There's no question the false molestation charges were over the top legally and ethically as I've repeatedly condemned. As to the Lennox statement, I'd certainly agree that “homosexual politician” is worthy of condemnation, but am not sure it should be illlegal or its in society's best interest to elevate Grebner to dollar-compensated “victim-hood” for it.

  • PoliticalJanitor

    If conduct like this was in a place of business – they would be fired. HR would get a hold of this and they would be terminated immediately.

    Nothing like this would happen in the professional world of business; hence the key word here is 'professional'. It's a shame that antics like this are considered appropriate in the world of politics. Either directly or indirectly, it's crap like this that gives politics a bad name and why every voter is turning against politicians and wanna-be politicians who would like to change the face of how politics be conducted. When are people going to stand up and say “enough is enough”.

    It’s time we brought professionalism, trust, integrity and respect back into politics. Because GOD knows it's people like these that don't belong or should ever be considered to hold political office but instead be considered for mental evaluation.

  • pacelegal

    At common law there are two matters here that are actionable as defamation without any proof of special damage:

    1. the suggestion that someone has committed a serious crime
    2. committed improprieties whilst engaged in a profession or trade

    It is assumed that S230 of the CDA case law may not always provide a foolproof defence.

  • TheWraith

    The fact that Wiki makes it so easy for people to make childish or libelous entries is the exact reason that I have this blocked from my network. While I do not necessarily agree with Grebner, I think it is reprehensible for people to make unauthorized entries to anyone's information.
    Some people take their political agenda WAY too far, and become rabid in the process. It does not matter what party you are in – this behavior is a liability to the party you claim to represent and love.
    Yes, we have the right to free speech. This is an important aspect of being an American. But there has to be responsibility that goes along with your freedom. How would Giammarinaro, Lennox, or Dennis react if they were the victim of such behavior?
    This case needs to be fought, and I hope Grebner wins. Maybe if we get back to some common sense rules that govern our freedoms (I know this sounds like an oxymoron but it is not), America can get back to being America.

  • http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

    “Childish” shouldn't be illegal. Libelous should.

    Childish should be punished by moral suasion, which I think is already happening in this case.

    I hope Grebner wins something in the Giammarinaro case. That would send a signal to the community that truly libelous activity on the net is subject to disclipline and within the reach of punishment. On the other hand, as RepublicanMichigander noted on MichiganLiberal's cite (Eric, I know you have some respect for him), the lawsuit against Bradley Dennis for the tax criticism might subject Grebner to counter-litigation for “Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation” (SLAPP laws). Agreeing with RM, the Lennox case may not be frivolous (or SLAPP violative, which is a specific form of frivolousness), but will probably be tossed out.

    So, ironically, I agree in large part. I hope Grebner wins. But I also hope he loses for overreaching too far , and draws.

    Ed,
    If there was truly a conspiracy here, it'd be mildly interesting. But where's the evidence? I look forward to your follow-up. I also look forward to you asking Grebner some questions.

  • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

    What you can also see here is a good example of why I find Grebner's actions questionable: Once this is turned into a legal case, the facts of the situation fade into the background while the issue becomes one of legal strategies and case law.

    Noone else, including the story's writer, looked at the actual trail of events and provided any context for what happened. How long were the changes available to the public? Was there difficulty in changing them? This is all in black and white in the history of the page, but noone else has even considered that. If Grebner had encountered some kind of consistent and ongoing difficulty with the page that he was unable to solve with Wikipedia's provided resources, then I would see legal action as a reasonable recourse, but the evidence shows clearly that the entries he did not like were updated, and that no other action is now necessary.

    In what way does this not fall right into the center of the definition of a “frivilous lawsuit”?

  • Somey

    @KellyLogan: As you say, “Wikipedia is a community data pool. If you don't want to be part of the community, stay out of the pool. It's just that simple. There are rules for using the pool, and if you think someone is breaking them, your first action should not be to sue the city to keep out the 'undesireables', your first action should be to talk to the lifeguards sitting right there, ready to help you.”

    In fact, most (if not all) communities have “attractive nuisance” laws specifically applying to public swimming pools that require the pool owners to put fences around them. Insurance rates are also much higher for pool owners, particularly those who flout such laws by not building proper fences. If your child wanders into an unsecured swimming pool and drowns, late at night after the lifeguards have all gone home, I should think the very first thing you'd want to do is sue the pool's owner for not putting up that fence – not complain about lifeguards who were asleep at home at the time.

    The “flagged revisions” feature, which might well have prevented the vandalism that makes up the basis of this case, was promised almomst three years ago, developed over two years ago, and has since been promised three more times since, along with something called “credentials verification” and several other so-called initiatives that would have eventually made Wikipedia something more like a properly-managed, reliable information source. These features are still vaporware, because most Wikipedians – including the site's owners, the Wikimedia Foundation – still consciously choose “openness” and growth over even the most tentative steps towards responsibility and accountability.

  • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

    Somey, thank you for putting an actual argument forth on this. You make some excellent points.

    Your “attractive nuisance” law concept however doesn't quite hit the mark. People do not 'drown' in incorrect information, and Grebner, who would be the water in the pool, is the victim you are trying to represent, not the person swimming. I don't see it as an apt metaphor for the issues that either you or I are describing.

    To return to the actual issue you describe, yes the information is still available and could be linked to by an active action of a user, but it would still display as a previous revision, and it would not be found by the casually browsing user. By the same argument, are you saying that newspapers should not only print mea culpa's but rewrite entire archived articles to account for any mistakes or later discovered information? For my part, I think it is more important and useful to preserve the complete trail of information, because this allows for the possibility that the *current* revision is the incorrect one.

    On the note of “flagged revisions” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagged_revisions), according to Wikipedia these were made available last year. I haven't used these myself, so if there is some lack of functionality with their implementation, please feel free to expand on that.

    I have to disagree with you on the your statement regarding responsibility and accountability; how can one be held accountable if you demand there is a singular truth that only certain people get to define? I have found the majority of users I have interacted with to be very responsible, even those I disagreed with. And in this country that has seen a long history of viscious retribution on those who have revealed truths desired hidden, it is hardly surprising that those seeking truth would err on the side of openness.

    For example, instead of deleting and attacking the information on the 2008 ballot proposal, consider how much more functional it would have been to put into a 'criticism' section so that it could be properly examined. If the charge was completely false, it could be discounted and would no longer foster rumors or appear to be a quashed truth. As someone on neither side of this issue, I can tell you that this comes off as heavy-handed message control.

    What if this was written on someone's personal blog? Would you have the same objections? Would you still support this legal action as a fair and reasonable response?

    • thekohser

      Kelly sez: “On the note of “flagged revisions” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagged_revisions), according to Wikipedia these were made available last year. I haven't used these myself, so if there is some lack of functionality with their implementation, please feel free to expand on that.”

      Why should Somey do the explanatory work, when you seem so obtuse regarding the absorption process?

      And then to finish with a question about “someone's personal blog”? You really don't understand the differences between a “publisher” and an “interactive computer service”, per the Section 230, do you?

      • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

        thekohser sez: “You really don't understand the differences between a “publisher” and an “interactive computer service”, per the Section 230, do you?”

        Once again, rather than taking the opportunity to actually inform people on this site, you use aspects of information as a club to try to bully and batter those who you see as opponents of your view.

        Maybe you missed the memo – Smug arrogance went out of style with the last administration. I have not ridiculed your opinion, only noted disagreements I've had with it and with your methods of presenting it.

        • thekohser

          Kell, we've all grown bored of your “ouch, I'm such the victim” charade here.

          • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

            Heh, I said you “try to bully and batter,” not that you succeed. I do apologize for coming on so strong there, I could have found a more constructive way of trying to get you to explain your opinions.

          • thekohser

            Kelly, I won't say that I'm speaking for everyone here, but for me, you've worn out any energy I may have had for intelligently discussing this case. My positions are quite biased and equally clear. I'm not likely to change them anytime soon. Where I had the most frustration with you was your assumption that everyone here with an opinion was obliged not only to fairly consider your own opinion, but also to spend time educating you on the points of plain fact that you were not yet aware of.

            Why did you stop editing Wikipedia in 2007?
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributi…

          • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

            I think you read far too much into my comments Greg. I'm not sure how to usefully respond to your comment though; how do you expect to intelligently discuss anything with anyone when you know that your positions are so biased? For me, a discussion is not just laying down absolute positions, it's an opportunity to present different perspectives and new information; done properly, all participants should leave with more information and ideas than they had going in.

            I do understand that it can be difficult, when you feel very well versed on a subject, to accept alternative ideas from someone that you see as less educated or experienced. This is something that I struggle with constantly on a number of political subjects. But the first step is realizing that there are very few “plain facts” when it comes to many of these kinds of topics. It is only when you are willing and able to consider the fundamentals of your beliefs that you are free from prejudices and other logical weaknesses.

            I did enjoy editing on Wikipedia, partially because I felt it helped to build something more lasting and positive than discussions like this one. To be honest, other work took precedence, though this may inspire me to make more time for it again! :^)

          • thekohser

            Trust me when I say, you are perfectly cut out for Wikipedia editing, administration, and arbitration.

          • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

            LOL – well, thank you Greg. Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment. :^)

  • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

    Looking back over the ideas and information people have presented here, I think I understand some more of what some people find troublesome about Wikipedia and how it could be used to commit some kind of significant abuse, but I still do not see that this was the case regarding the page on Grebner.

    He won the election, so that was not affected. There is no evidence that anyone has presented that these posts caused him any specific injury, particularly in the context of an elected official and the very small amount of time the posts were visible.

    Every indication is that this was handled properly by the mechanisms already in place on Wikipedia, and that there were several courses of much simpler and more direct action available to Grebner if he desired. And noone has taken up my call to show in what way this suit passed the bar to not be another frivilous lawsuit intent on using monetary and legal strength to bully and control the actions of others.

    • thekohser

      Kelly, I looked for the article about “Kelly Logan” on Wikipedia, but there was none. There is an article about “MyWikiBiz”, and there is a page for “Gregory Kohs”, which redirects to “MyWikiBiz”. Until you've felt what it feels like to have anonymous teenagers controlling your biography on the world's seventh most trafficked website, please — PLEASE, don't lecture us about the magnitude and duration of injury one experiences when the WikiDefamation platform is running full bore.

      I would like you to opine on the case of Taner Akcam at the Montreal airport. Was his injury minor? Something we should dismiss, since he didn't take anyone to court? Is he a “good guy” in your book, only because he didn't “bully” anyone, but had he filed charges for his illegitimate detention, then he'd go in your “bully file”?

      • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

        Greg, this is something personal to you, obviously. I'm sorry if you see my opinions as “lecturing”; but I think it's appropriate to have a sense of scale and context about issues like this.

        I have agreed that Wikipedia entries could cause significant issues, where we disagree is on whether or not they have _in this case_. If we want to talk about greater issues, let's discuss the case of Jose Padilla and how corporate news sources failed to prevent significant injury to him and his identity. Let's talk about how consolidation of media has left citizens with no major news source that is not completely beholden to big business interests. Let's talk about the basic ideas of public commons and resources and whether information should be part of them, or just another commodity that is bought and sold for profit.

        Or we could talk about this case.

        If you'd like to talk about this case, then please explain to me what evidence for specific and significant harm was done to Grebner that he could have dealt with by using Wikipedia's, the university's, or his own personal abilities. Why was a court case necessary?

  • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

    It should also be noted that the sole evidence against the three students is MAC/IP info, which could be modified relatively easily. Wouldn't this fall short of reasonable doubt unless there is other evidence (someone saw them doing it, heard them talking about it…, etc.)?

  • http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

    Kelly, some great points. Grebner's failure to mitigate damages is going to be a defense argument, no doubt. But it doesn't cut to the core of the case – the core of the case leads to some sympathy for Grebner, particularly regarding the Giarrarino (sp) defendant's claim on the false child molestation conviction. But Grebner over-reaches, no doubt in my mind because Lennox has been elevated, probably somewhat deservingly, to target by the left; and Grebner wants to paint this as a grand conspiracy against him for other reasons.

    Civil lawsuit doesn't require “reasonable doubt,” only preponderance of the evidence standard, however, libel lawsuits have a special “reckless disregard for the truth or knowing the falsity” standard, which is perhaps a higher bar than reasonable doubt in some ways.

    • http://rainonlevs.livejournal.com/ KellyLogan

      Interesting, thank you chetlyzarko.

      So *is* there a standard or requirement for making use of available recourses before bringing a suit like this?

  • http://www.outsidelansing.com chetlyzarko

    No, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe a general doctrine of an obligation to mitigate damages. If you're a landlord and a tenant backs out on the contract, you have an obligation to at least try to rent the place in the interim, for example.

  • http://www.GregoryKohs.com Gregory Kohs

    Note, Charity Navigator now rates the Wikimedia Foundation with 2 out of 4 stars, in Organization Efficiency. The problem seems to be getting worse, not better, if you look at the histogram of year-by-year ratios.

  • http://www.GregoryKohs.com Gregory Kohs

    Note, Charity Navigator now rates the Wikimedia Foundation with 2 out of 4 stars, in Organization Efficiency. The problem seems to be getting worse, not better, if you look at the histogram of year-by-year ratios.