Wiki authors, bloggers put on notice

Wikipedians and bloggers are warned to watch what they write, despite a recent court ruling regarding online defamation.

Last week, a French court ruled that the Wikimedia Foundation could not be held responsible for content posted by its users.

Three plaintiffs were each seeking 69,000 euros ($A108,867) in damages for invasion of their privacy after their homosexuality was revealed on the website.

Bond University Associate Professor Dr Dan Svantesson isn't surprised by the ruling, but suggests individual authors will probably now come under more scrutiny.

"The court would say that once the party (in this case Wikimedia) takes steps within a time that seems responsible, then they would be protected," Dr Svantesson said.

"The French ruling shows a general trend whereby the parties in charge of the website are not held liable."

Dr Svantesson also suggests that Australia's Online Services Act, introduced as an amendment to the Broadcasting Services Act, would provide internet content hosts with similar protection.

It states, "A law of a state or territory...has no effect to the extent to which it subjects...an internet content host to liability...in respect of hosting particular internet content in a case where the host was not aware of the nature of the internet content".

"It's untested so far, but it appears to be along the same lines as the French approach," Dr Svantesson said.

Recently, Wikimedia has become more "hands-on" in its monitoring of particular high-profile entries, including US President George W Bush, Islam and the Republic of Macedonia.

Taking more control over what appears on Wikimedia could remove some of the protection that currently exists.

"The more Wikipedia does to monitor or control the content, the more likely it's going to be argued that they were exercising control, and by allowing something to remain up, have in a sense consented it to being available," Dr Svantesson said.

However, he believes the onus of responsibility will always fall back upon the creator of the content.

"The party making the posting is always going to be at risk, they are after all responsible for their own actions," Dr Svantesson said.

"People need to appreciate that when they make a posting it can have worldwide implications. So they need to take responsibility for what they post."

He predicts that the next time a similar defamation case arises, the plaintiff is more likely to zero in on the author.

"The logical step would be, in the next case like this, that the plaintiff will be seeking to find out who made the actual post."